Critical (but Polite) LDS Discussion (for Pa Pa)

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

I wanted to add this link to our discussion which spilled over on another thread (with regard the nature of the Godhead we've been discussing here).

I posted some things which make mention of the nature of the Godhead and you posted a thoughtful reply.

For any who are reading through these posts, I want to provide a link to that post as it has relevance to this discussion.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=416592#p416592

I am considering copying and pasting the entry to make it easier to read... what do you think, GR33N? Leave it as a link, or paste the whole thing?

Your choice, either way is acceptable to me. I am working on a response to it anyway.

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

You make a good point that there is room for interpreting those passages to allow for God the Father to have a physical body. In the 'Polite' thread, we had been discussing the Lectures on Faith and I pointed out that the Lecture Fifth described God as being a "personage of spirit, glory and power." I used this as evidence which suggests that God was not viewed as having a physical body, but I can see how you might legitimately see it as simply emphasizing other aspects of God, without mentioning his physical nature one way or another.

I think, however, that my position holds a slight advantage over your position, at least in this one regard: The Book of Mormon, in mentioning the nature of God (let's say) one-thousand times, has to only describe God/Christ in the (incorrect) Nicene view one time for my claim to have validity. To argue that nine-hundred and ninety-nine times the Book of Mormon got it right, and that it only erred in one instance, does great harm to the proposition that the Book of Mormon is the inspired word of God.

So, I will concede on the outset that there are definitely verses in the Book of Mormon which allow for the interpretation of the nature of God to be either LDS or Nicene (to use simplified labels). But I would like to show that there are a large number of isolated descriptions of the nature of God which seem to clearly indicate a lack of understanding of the LDS (God the Father = Physical Body) Godhead.

Let me reference those here:

1 Nephi 11:18 (1830 version, "the Son of" was added in the 1837 edition)
And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

1 Nephi 11:21 (1830 version, before being edited to add "the Son of")
And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 version, before being edited to add "the Son of")
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Mosiah 15:1 (indeed, throughout chapters 15 and 16) And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38-39 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Ether 3:14: Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

These verses should make clear why many critics, including myself, consider Smith's 1838 account of an 1820 First Vision to be terribly difficult to believe.

I appreciate that you allow for the possibility that God the Father does have a physical body. The fact that he does has a physical body of course supports to the concept of the Godhead (3 distinct members) vs. the Nicene creed of all in one.

As I have mentioned in previous posts concerning this topic understanding the nature of the Godhead is important to remember when reading the above quoted scriptures. Most of the words we use to refer to God the Father or to his Son, Jesus Christ are titles in concept. God the Father is referred to as God because he is a God and Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, God's Son is also a God and therefore referred to as God. Jesus Christ created this world under the direction of His father and so is also referred to as Father (of creation) or Eternal Father(because of His eternal nature). He is Father and Son, Father of Creation and Son of God, both are titles referring to Jesus Christ.

These verses at face value are confusing to read. Understanding the concept that these words are titles to show reverence helps to shed some light.

I don't pretend to know all there is to know about God and his many attributes, I am striving to learn more about him every chance I have. With that understanding I express my opinion above but it is an opinion based on my interpretation and personal revelation.

In the same way that you can see that possibility that allows for God the Father to have a physical body, can you see the possibility that the some of the titles referred to Jesus Christ can be titles also held by God the Father.

[_basilII]

That is not the Nicene or orthodox view of God. Jesus is not the Son and the Father. Jesus is God the Son distinct from God the Father. It strikes me more as modalism than trinitarianism.

basilII: not being trained in these matters, I would appreciate it if you could provide a somewhat detailed analysis on this matter, and explain the significance of your observations. Thanks!

To be honest I am somewhat of a novice myself, I've only been at it a couple of years (and with no formal training). But this is how I understand it:

As background it is important to keep in mind that for Nicene/orthodox Christianity there is a fundamental distinction between God on the one hand, who is considered to be eternal, not created, infinite, etc. and everything else (you, me, time, space, matter, the universe etc.) which is considered to have not always existed and hence was created and is finite. There is a Creator and there is his creation.

The debate in early Christianity was to which category Jesus belonged. Was he the highest created being, closest to God, but still essentially a creation of the Father? Or was he God in the every sense that Father is God: eternal and uncreated? And if Jesus was God in the latter sense, then what does it mean to say that we believe in one God?

Modalism was an attempt to get around these problems by arguing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different modes or expressions of the same being who is the one God. At one time God may manifest himself as the Father, another time as Jesus, etc. This view was rejected by orthodox Christianity. And the view of Jesus as a created being was formally condemned at the council of Nicaea.

Nicene/orthodox Christians instead argued that the one uncreated God was 3 distinct persons: one divine reality or essence, 3 distinct but inseparable persons. From our point of view as finite creatures this all seems pretty strange, in the universe we inhabit distinct beings should be able to be physically separated in some fashion. But in traditional Christianity God is not part of our universe, not material, and he is not one being among many but rather Being itself. Our limited intuitions and experiences do not apply to the infinite God, or so an orthodox Christian may argue. And to be honest I don't have a problem with that, since the created world itself is manifestly strange and sometimes counterintuitive (quantum mechanics anyone?).

Hope that helps (again just my view which someone with more knowledge or experience may correct).