Observations from a quick read of the BoM

[Dale]

I am Community of Christ and we do have a 1966 Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon with slightly modernized language. But we also have a popular 1908 edition which retains traditional language.

Our church and the LDS started out as one church, but split after about 15 years. We have been on different doctrinal and historical tracks since that time. I have no objection to my church being considered an offshoot of the LDS Church.

With Book of Mormon and the Trinity i see absence of it clearly teaching the meaning behind the latin word persona. Those who wrote the creeds had to explain how the persons of God were not to be confused with Gods as they were one God. So what they did was to say the persons of God were not like three separate men, but instead they had in mind the three persons an actor plays in a play. But without either the Book of Mormon, or Bible having that idea of persons in mind the idea of the Trinity is not strict mono-theism as Jews and Moslem's see it. The idea of three distinct centers of consciousness withing God sounds close to the idea of Gods as the persons of an actor are dumb apart from the actors personality being pretended persons.

Now my church has a Trinitarian view of the Book of Mormon. But i think the book if the persons of God are aware of each other like three men could just be disguising unorthodoxy using mono-theistic terminology from Judaism. The Book of Mormon does teach of the distinctions between the persons of God, but i see some ambiguity in the text that does not resolve the difficulty the persons of God pose for harmonizing it with strict mono-theism. Us Trinitarians resolve the problem through the latin word persona whether the meaning is unambiguously found in scripture, or not.

[Misshalfway]

With regards to the Godhead.....

In LDS theology, the first vision is the most reliable descriptor of God and Jesus....as they were two separate, male, glorified beings who appeared to Joseph Smith that day in 1820. You can argue the nature of God all day, but if you saw what Joseph saw that day, and if they spoke one referring to the other as his son, the debate would be laid to rest.

You may also want to read Doctrine and Covenants section 130: 22

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

[Tarnished]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Creation of ALL things
Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.
Mosiah 5:15 …that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent,….of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all.

Now I may grant that the English translation of the Hebrew word "create" in Genesis may allow for an error in translation and could possibly include concepts other then ex-nihilo creation. However given the history and nearly universal semantic understanding of the word "create" in English when referring to acts of God, it is very unfortunate of Joseph Smith to use that word, if he meant to convey the modern LDS understanding of it. Re-shape, transform, re-mould or a host of other words if used in place of "create" would have alleviated the misunderstanding. Furthermore even if I entertain the idea of transformation rather than outright creation then it is "all things" that are transformed. This leaves little room for anything not to be effected by that act. Which in my mind at least runs counter to the eternal progression ideas of the possibility of other Gods and realms before this one.

I would like to add to the discussion regarding this as I think part of what you asked has not been addressed. From what I am reading, and correct me if I am wrong, you are reading "God created all things" as "God has created all things and thus other Gods or realms prior to this current God and realm are impossible as God has created everything himself.

I think what we must consider is that God is an eternal God and as we do not truly have a concept of eternity we thus really can not comprehend what an eternal God would mean.

Being an eternal being he can range through time in ways we really can not comprehend. Consider the different dimensions of space and time. We currently live in a 3rd dimensional world; however there have been proven to be many more dimensions than this. I would think that God would be able to move through all of those dimensions, most of which we can not even comprehend.

Our belief on previous Gods also relies on our belief of the separation of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost. We believe that they are separate beings who are one in spirit. Christ has said that he has done nothing except he saw his father do it. This would mean that Heavenly Father went through a similar experience to what Christ has gone through. This does not mean that Christ is not eternal, as I alluded to before I do not think that we can really define the term “eternal” and accurately understand it.

Though not all of these beliefs are found in the Book of Mormon they are found in the Doctrine and Covenants which is additional revelations from God. And seeing as they came from God I do not see them as straying from his gospel at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

With regards to the Godhead.....

You may also want to read Doctrine and Covenants section 130: 22

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

FWIW (and slightly off-topic) there are is a slight problem with that particular passage of scripture. D&C 130:22 is based on Orson Hyde's recollection of Joseph Smith's teaching; but both Willard Richards and William Clayton transcribed the remarks differently: according to them, the personage of the Holy Ghost can not, under any circumstances, "dwell in us". See here.

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

[Faded]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

From my brief scan-through of the RLDS (at the time) Doctrine and Covenants, their D&C goes up to about section 107. From there, it diverges and adds a number of sections from their prophets that are obviously not in our D&C. So no they don't have our section 130 in their version.

Still, the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Trinity was a false doctrine is clear enough. It's a matter of historical record and he was consistent on this point. The fact that they accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God on the one hand, and accept the Trinity on the other is one of those things I've always wanted to have one of them explain to me.

The first vision would be great at disproving Unitarianism or Modalism, but it doesn't really work when it comes to the Trinity. The Trinity accepts two completely contradictory truths to be true at the same time. God is three. God is one. Because the believer in the Trinity understands them to be three separate and distinct people, then the experience of Joseph Smith would not directly disprove the Trinity with absolute certainty. But he did teach that the concept was a false doctrine throughout his life.

[AnthonyB]

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.
Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlieing essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they percieve in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlieing reality of God's oneness.

[Faded]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.
Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlying essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they perceive in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlying reality of God's oneness.

I'd say we could start yet another thread on the Trinity vs the Godhead, but I'm scared of the idea. Always ends badly though.

If you say "God is one" and leave it at that, you're a Unitarian. If you say "God is three" and leave it at that, then you believe in the Godhead. These are two, no nonsense simple approaches to the nature of God. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. There's no room for confusion.

Now you can dress it up any way you like, but what the Trinity really boils down to is exactly what I said. "God is three and God is one." Trinitarians reject Unitarianism as well as the Godhead. So from the Trinitarian point of view, God is neither and both. How you describe that apparent logical contradiction is the really tricky part. It's made even more difficult by the existence of the other two doctrines. If you proclaim too strongly that "God is one" then you're going to come across as a Unitarian. If you focus on the "God is three" aspect then people will think you believe in the Godhead. So the Trinity rests somewhere in between the two options, and is incredibly confusing as a result. Centuries of theology and work have gone into trying to explain how the two contradictory statements about God can coexist in the same being. And there's no easy way of doing so. It all gets very mysterious and confusing. And many Trinitarians will tell you all of this is clear proof that it's true.

It often puzzles me that the Council of Nicaea chose this option for describing God, but I suppose they felt that Arianism was the only alternative. Arianism is certainly a worse option than the Trinity, IMHO.

[Tarnished]

Truthfully the whole matter of the Godhead vs. the Trinity in the LDS view comes down to this: Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings. And they spoke to him separately. When you have evidence such as that how can an LDS believer consider the Godhead to be one in body? Knowing that they appeared to Joseph Smith as separate beings it would be ludicrous for an LDS believer to believe in the Trinity. And it clarifies the scriptures about being one as being one in spirit, because if they appear to people as separate beings then they can not be one being.

Even the Bible shows them appearing as three separate beings, when Christ is baptized a voice is heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descends as a dove. Three separate beings.

Because other Christians do not believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith we obviously do not expect them to believe as we do. Proving it through the scriptures is mainly for the benefit of non-LDS Christians. Arguing over words that imperfect men invented and their meaning can go on forever as each side has different interpretations. As we have seen with the Bible there are so many conflicting views that can understandably be taken from the same text.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

FWIW (and slightly off-topic) there are is a slight problem with that particular passage of scripture. D&C 130:22 is based on Orson Hyde's recollection of Joseph Smith's teaching; but both Willard Richards and William Clayton transcribed the remarks differently: according to them, the personage of the Holy Ghost can not, under any circumstances, "dwell in us". See here.

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

Excellent clarification. Thank you. It is important to understand that the HG can only be in one place at one time, but that his influence can be felt inside of us. It would be an interesting thing to understand more of how the HG's influence can be felt and how that translates into light....the very light that shines from our being.

[utcowboy]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.
Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlieing essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they percieve in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlieing reality of God's oneness.

So if I'm reading this right you are saying that God is one is Spirit but three seperate entitys or beings? That they are one in their desire for us and the completion of their plan, yet appear to us as three seperate individuals? Did I read that right?