Mormon Schizophrenia disorder - The QUAD

[_Mittens]

One being. Three persons.

The definition of person is a human being. So your definition of god is three human beings.

Sorry ! Jesus is the only person in The Godhead who fits your definition

[_huckelberry]

One being. Three persons.

The definition of person is a human being. So your definition of god is three human beings.

spotlight,
that is one possible definition of person. It is not the one being used in trinitarian discussion.
reasonable quick view in wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

it points out that the discussion starts with the question of what is relationship between God ,Jesus and, holy spirit. It is concerned with relationship.

Separating LDS thought from Trinitarian can present difficulties and uncertainties. I doubt that either the number or exact definition of persons is an easy path to clarify. There may be more difference in the idea of what is god to start with.

[_Mittens]

Not so fast spotlight

We teach 1X1X1=1 or three separate persons ONE GOD

but are gods

you realize perhaps that 1x1x1 =1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1
x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1 etc

does that mean that the LDS godhead equals the Trinity?

I think the Godhead is 3 separate and distinct persons

[_spotlight]

spotlight,
that is one possible definition of person. It is not the one being used in trinitarian discussion.
reasonable quick view in wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

it points out that the discussion starts with the question of what is relationship between God ,Jesus and, holy spirit. It is concerned with relationship.

Separating LDS thought from Trinitarian can present difficulties and uncertainties. I doubt that either the number or exact definition of persons is an easy path to clarify. There may be more difference in the idea of what is god to start with.

It is Mittens job to explain what he means. Mittens throws words around, leaving them undefined, in an attempt to define what he believes. All I am asking him to do is define what he means. He still hasn't done it.

[_spotlight]

Mittens finds the LDS version of god (three but one in purpose) laughable while proclaiming a belief in the "mainstream" Trinitarian view of god. I submit that all views of literal gods are laughable. The Trinitarian god is no exception. Jesus being the son of Mary would have had the signature of ERV patterns in his DNA proving that his body was descended from primordial apes and from there back to the first life form which if we wish we could for sake of argument attribute to the creative power of god. So now the Trinitarian god (singular) is his own father and his own son and he created himself. Sounds laughable to me.

[_Maksutov]

Mittens finds the LDS version of god (three but one in purpose) laughable while proclaiming a belief in the "mainstream" Trinitarian view of god. I submit that all views of literal gods are laughable. The Trinitarian god is no exception. Jesus being the son of Mary would have had the signature of ERV patterns in his DNA proving that his body was descended from primordial apes and from there back to the first life form which if we wish we could for sake of argument attribute to the creative power of god. So now the Trinitarian god (singular) is his own father and his own son and he created himself. Sounds laughable to me.

Spotlight, it should be possible to research this. I understand that there are several cathedrals that have remnants of the Son of God's foreskin. So we can sequence the genome of a God-human hybrid.

[_spotlight]

Spotlight, it should be possible to research this. I understand that there are several cathedrals that have remnants of the Son of God's foreskin. So we can sequence the genome of a God-human hybrid.

They divided it up?

[_Mittens]

Mittens finds the LDS version of god (three but one in purpose) laughable while proclaiming a belief in the "mainstream" Trinitarian view of god. I submit that all views of literal gods are laughable. The Trinitarian god is no exception. Jesus being the son of Mary would have had the signature of ERV patterns in his DNA proving that his body was descended from primordial apes and from there back to the first life form which if we wish we could for sake of argument attribute to the creative power of god. So now the Trinitarian god (singular) is his own father and his own son and he created himself. Sounds laughable to me.

My definition of person the same of Joseph Smith

http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith
Lectures on Faith

Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father;

[_spotlight]

Mittens,
In case it isn't clear, I am not defending Mormonism. Joseph's view of the godhead changed over time but that would be denied by most TBMs, I imagine with apologetics such as "a resurrected body is called spiritual even though it is a physical body because it is quickened by spirit rather than by blood as in a mortal body."

And the pre-existence of Jesus Christ is a doctrine in Mormonism. He had no physical body per LDS theology prior to birth in the flesh and was separate from the father as a personage of spirit in his own right and was capable of sitting on the right hand of the father as individual people in mortality are capable of doing.

[_huckelberry]

It is easy to see preserved foreskin of Jesus as outside of believable. I might wish to doubt that any such cathedral exists but lust for relics was strong in some past times.

Traditional theology would see Jesus as genuinely human so his dna would be regular human dna with its normal primate roots. I do fail to see anything remarkable about that. Of course the eternal divine Son would be creator of the order establishing human dna which became his own incarnation. I suppose if one thought that the order of dna was required for Jesus to be divine that would present a tangle, In traditional theology the son was eternally divine and of course would be the source of order in human dna.