Mormon Trinity

[Cow Poke]

The Mormon community was in the audience as he spoke, but also people like those who dragged him from his home and tarred and feathered him. They were there too.

How many of those were angry Mormons who felt betrayed and stabbed in the back? Smith had a tendency to get his own followers really angry at him.

[Cow Poke]

As more information about his life and the inconsistencies of his teaching come to light, that seems inevitable. A very different social dynamic is at work today than when people were giving up their homes and moving cross country to be with him and let him "marry" their wives, daughters, and servants.

Absolutely agreed! But very soon, many of those turned on him because of some of his self-centered ploys like the Kirkland Bank, is sexual escapades.. he even had to have his own vigilante group to control the crowds of angry Mormons at Far West, Mo. Even some of the mob that eventually killed him consisted of his own former followers.

[Sparko]

How many of those were angry Mormons who felt betrayed and stabbed in the back? Smith had a tendency to get his own followers really angry at him.

Yeah like all of his "witnesses" that later recanted. Or his wife Emma and son who left and started their own denomination, and all of his BFFs that he excommunicated.

Smith was more like a cartoon villain than a prophet.

[Bill the Cat]

No it doesn't. We have God being the Father in a spiritual sense, and then we have God being the Father in a new and unique sense; unique to Jesus only.

In a spiritual sense in that He created our spirits. In the same metaphorical sense as Euclid was the "Father" of geometry. He did not create the Son. He created us.

There are many "sons of God" in a spiritual sense, of whom Jesus Christ is the Firstbegotten among the other "sons of God".

No. He is the prototokos, which here emphasizes His pre-eminence over all creation, not a numerical order of His "birth". That's why, in Col 1:15, He is called "prototokos pases ktiseos" or "firstborn of all creation". If we look at Jeremiah 31:9, we see an example which really shows how the most prominent to God was actually called "my firstborn" (Ephraim). Although Manassah was actually the firstborn child (Genesis 41:50-52), God chose Ephraim and thus says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). If we take your numeric order literally, that would mean that Jesus is the first in the series of every species, meaning He would be OF every species. Sorry, but your interpretation fails the biblical record on multiple fronts yet again.

As Paul explained in Col 1:15, Jesus is "the first-born of all creation". This is true of Jesus BEFORE mortality, when all of creation was made subject to Him. This term "first born" is the same Greek term which is in Hebrews chapter 1, and it is also the same as used in Luke 2:7, referring to Jesus being Mary's first child (in mortality). It is the same concept.

When prototokos is used in a literal sense, as it is in Hebrews 1 and Luke 2:7, it is referring to the Son taking on flesh. Yet again, you think Hebrews 1 refers to pre-incarnation, which it does not. It is ALL about Jesus' humanity and subsequent coronation and why this human, God's "firstborn", called both monogenes and prototokos in different places, deserved to be the object of worship for the Jews. They would understand, as Jews who knew the story of Ephraim and Manasseh, that "prototokos" in this instance would not be implying any sort of birth order.

By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

Yes, comparing Him to them because the Jews were worshipping the angels instead of their rightful King. But it in no way EQUATES them. Jesus is not considered of the same species as those whom God "makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire". The writer is stressing the different roles that the Son plays and the angels play. He is not saying they are the same species. He is saying that angels are created to be messengers ONLY while the Son came into the world to be King.

The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity.

And thus, not at all like His Father or us, who all had/have to be granted our perfection based on another's righteousness.

However, as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was.

Sorry, but no. There are several times where a literal "first born" child did not receive God's title of "first born".

He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh.

I have no problem with this statement. But, again, this does not imply that there were other options to choose from, nor that the Son and angels (or the bene elohim) were "offspring" in the same manner. It is more similar to Euclid being a father to his sons and a "father" to Geometry.

So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position.

No it doesn't. It makes Jesus "just another angel" who happened to get lucky and win the celestial lottery, and makes a mess of the entire book of Hebrews.

By inheriting the name of the Father,

He inherited the name/title "King of the Jews"

and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.

Again, the Jews were His "fellows", not the gentiles, and certainly not the angels. Jesus was unique, and not just another angelic face in the crowd. He created them.

Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position.

It was teaching no such thing. It was teaching the Kingship of Jesus over Israel.

In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”

The context here is not the number of gods, but the operation of the persons with each other. Justin was discussing with Trypho the impossibility of a strictly unipersonal monotheistic God when the scriptures say that He is not unipersonal. Justin says later “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Justin never directly mentions that there is only one God because Trypho and he already agree on it. What He is arguing for is that there are multiple persons in the one God, and that the Son was who appeared to the Partiarchs.

All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title.

No it is not. It is a description of the amount of glory radiating from someone. Just as the "Morning Star" (Venus) is the third brightest luminary in our sky, those with God's glory are called "Morning Star". The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first thing that does away with the darkness of night. In fact, this glory is to be given to Christians who overcome the world (See Rev 2:28)

As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".

As reflections of God's glory, they were radiant beings, as Venus was a radiant "star" in the heavens. Nothing indicates they were "sired" by God and His wife (or whatever other nonsense spin you put on it) or that they were pre-humans.

You attempted to imply that only those who do God's will can be considered the "sons of god", whether the the title is applied to humans or spirits (angels).

No. I said that only those who do God's will are SPIRITUAL sons of God.

John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name

However, we see in the book of Acts, "all the nations" are considered to be God's offspring (Greek - genos). GENOS kindred , offspring, family, stock, (the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort).

Because He made us, as in Acts 17:25. And just before calling us His "offspring", Paul explains what he means by saying

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

Just as the pagans in Athens believed, and specifically their poets that Paul was referring to:

Cilician poet Aratus (315-240 BCE): “It is with Zeus that every one of us in every way has to do, for we are also his offspring” (Phaenonlena 5).

And learned Greeks would know that Promethius was the one who actually formed man from the clay, but that Zeus was the supreme God in the Greek Pantheon, so he was the one by whom they continued to exist.

Also, we see that Lucifer is still considered a "son of the morning" after he had fallen from heaven. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isa 14:12)

I do not think that was said as a statement of fact as much as it was an insult. The shame of being reminded of who you were was evident here.

So, we can conclude that all spirits and all men are "sons of God" and the "offspring of God", in the original sense and even when "fallen".

Not even close. We can conclude that God is the father of all by virtue of creating them and being the most high God, but that only the believers were spiritual sons of God.

Adam is a "son of God" as are all the rest of the human family in the ultimate sense.

Again, only through Him creating Adam, and us too.

It is true that with sin, we become alienated from the Father, and in that sense, that we lose our position and the rights that sons would have, but that is not an ontological change (it is not a change of what kind of being we are).

No. We never had the spiritual sonship by default for us to lose. Our ontology is a created being, not a literal spiritual son of God.

In fact, the only reason that we are capable of obtaining "Eternal Life" is because, through Christs atonement, it brings us back to a kind of position before God which we had in paradise, which was previously lost

Simply and utterly untrue. Were that the case, there would be no need for us to be "adopted". See the parable of the Prodigal Son for example. The Prodigal did not need to be adopted when he returned to his father, yet WE need adoption in order to become Sons of God (Eph 1:5).

- only now we are as God said to the other gods, "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil".


That is the story of mankind in the Garden of Eden - children of God within God's presence who left that place in order to enter mortality.

No. This is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, not anyone else. And they "entered mortality" before being cast out. God cursed them and made clothing for them before casting them out.

Again a Biblical story providing a picture of LDS theology; a premortal existence in the presence of God.

Utter and complete nonsense. Adam and Eve were not in any "pre-mortal existence" in Eden. They were on earth in the Garden.

He is also called the "Firstbegotten" who is brought into the world (Hebrews 1) and also the "first born of all creation". Both titles are appropriate BEFORE the incarnation.

I've already addressed this above, but I'll reiterate that the first term referred to His incarnation while the second His pre-eminence over creation. Neither have anything to do with Him being the same species as the angels.

You are referring to a "foreordination" to become the "Only Begotten Son".

No. He is the only begotten in both respects, spiritual before creation and physical at the incarnation.

"We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprises preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other;" (Talmage - Jesus the Christ)

...Foreordination does not necessarily include pre-existence...

(Foundations of the Christian Way of Life According to 1 Peter 1, 13-25: An Exegetico-theological Study by Jacob Prasad)

Hebrews verse 9 says the following: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

Which was recited over the Kings of Israel in order for them to be legitimately crowned King.

From your position, you have to pretend that Jesus was not chosen or anointed until AFTER he became mortal.

Straw man. He did not become the rightful King of Israel until after his ascension.

We know that this is not true. Look how reasons are given for why the God of Jesus anointed him from among his fellows - namely Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity.

They are not REASONS. They are prophetic proclamations that He was to be crowned King. They were proclaimed over every monarch being crowned in Israel, even those who were wicked. That is what you fail to understand.

This must be true before mortality, for Jesus, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) You cannot claim that God chose Jesus as an afterthought, after he became a man.

You are mixing verses that are dealing with different subjects. 1 Peter is dealing with salvation for the world. Hebrews 1 is dealing with Jesus being King over the Hebrews.

Furthermore, there is no sense in claiming that Jesus was "elected" or "chosen" or "foreordained", if from before the foundation of the world, there was nobody else to choose from.

That's utter tripe. You yourself admitted that he alone was a "perfect spirit", and since perfection was required for the sacrifice, He was the only candidate available. Or are you going to now claim that there were multiple perfect spirits to choose from? Or that an imperfect sacrifice would suffice? Which is it?

As I said, the context of Hebrews 1 is clearly discussing angels, and Jesus being elected from among them, thus "becoming better" than them, and "obtaining" a better name than them by inheritance.

And I've thoroughly debunked that claim. It is about the insufficiency of angels to be worshipped by the Hebrews and the sufficiency of the Son. It is about HIS right to be their King.

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies
A footstool for Your feet”?

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

Were Jesus just "another angel", the answer would be "That angel", or the question should have included the word "Other".

In Isaiah 42:1, we find these prophetic words about Jesus: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my elect/chosen one in whom my soul delights"

This is YHWH speaking, so how can it be about Jesus when it is Jesus speaking about His servant?

(Bill posted Deuteronomy 18)
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
...
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

That is correct. We are ALL brothers. Jesus included.

NO!! This was Moses talking to the Jews, not us gentiles. It was used as proof that Jesus was the Messiah, since He was a Jew.

We were brothers before this life and we are brothers in mortality.

That is absolutely not even in the same realm as the context of this verse.

And we are all created by God in the image and likeness of God.

But we gentiles are not bretheren of the Jews, hence our need to be GRAFTED IN to the olive tree. Moses was talking to the Jews, and He said their bretheren were the Jews. Any interpretation that makes Gentiles the "bretheren" that Moses was talking about is simple hogwash.

There are many sons of God according to the spirit,

Again, only in that God created their spirits.

but Jesus Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be the Only Begotten according to the flesh.

And He is the only begotten in the spirit.

You and I both know that "sons of God" or "children of God" is a title applied to both spirits in Heaven (ie angels), AND it is applied to humans on Earth.

So is the term "sons of your father, the devil". This is ample evidence to show that not all "sons" were natural descendents.

Humans are simply spirits (spiritual sons - angels) placed into physical bodies, and our memory is veiled so that we can live in mortality by faith, rather than a perfect knowledge.

False. Our spirits are created at our conception. We did not exist when the angels shouted at creation (See Job 38:7)

If God wanted us to have a perfect knowledge of his existence, he could have revealed Himself in glory to the whole world at any time.

I know this...

The idea that angels and humans are different species of beings is an error.

It is correct doctrine. The idea that they are the same species is fully debunked by the Bible.

I agree that Jesus should be worshiped, and other angels should not.

You loaded your response with "other" which is simply not there in scripture.

Again, this is because the "scepter" of the kingdom was passed from the Father only to the first born Son. That is the imagery of the Hebrews 1 passage. This is the Divine Monarchy. The Father is the King and the first born Son of God "obtains" his inheritance by "becoming" the new King - a perfect profile of LDS doctrine.

No it isn't. This synopsis ignores the key LDS doctrine (that has been refuted) that the Father, Son, and those the Father commands are the same species.

Not superficially. It matches LDS doctrine in a very deep and rich way.

That's a hoot! You have to do more exegetical gymnastics than the entire US National team...

I will tell you what DOES NOT match the text: the idea that the Father and Jesus are the same being/substance. That does not match the text at all.

Uh, maybe because the ontology of the Son is not what is being addressed...

It is not a matter of you trusting Jesus. You are trusting a faulty an uninspired interpretation of the text.

Whatever you say Mr. Mitty...

Consider 2 Peter 1:

"For he (Jesus) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

And??

What you have in the creeds Bill, are documents formed "by the will of man".

Who received instruction from the Apostles. What you have are the ravings of a megalomaniac.

Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world.

You are thoroughly ignorant of Constantine's role in Nicea. Eusebius said that Constantine didn't care what conclusion they came to, only that a conclusion was reached to stave off chaos.

Those men in those councils were not holy men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit.

Says an uninspired heretic. Color me unimpressed with your attempted synopsis.

I am applying it to the "sons of God", who are both angels and men. They are the same kind of being, only in a different state: one state is a glorious one in the presence of God, and another is a temporarily lower state, as a mortal, subject to infirmity and death and limited in our knowledge of God.

And your proof has been thoroughly refuted. Angels are not men. They are not humans. They are "ALL ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation".

Thank you for agreeing with me. I agree that the term "angel" does not describe an ontologically different kind of being.

In most cases. Sometimes it does.

In the Old testament, it often simply refers to a spirit son of God, acting as a servant of God before mortality, who is serving as a messenger.

It also refers to humans who delivered messages from king to king. It is not a species in and of itself, nor was it ever considered to be.

This is the case for Jesus as well, who was known as God the Father's mouthpiece in the Old Testament, as Jehovah/Yahweh, "the Word of God", the "Angel of the Lord's presence".

-7up

But He was not considered of the same species as the heavenly messengers.

[seven7up]

Well, GEE, since he was supposedly hearing DIRECTLY FROM "the Father", yeah... I think that's a pretty significant detail to get totally WRONG. But, NO, that is NOT what I am implying...

Joseph had a vision. He didn't sit down and eat dinner with God the Father. He didn't touch God the Father. At that point, there is no way that Joseph could have known that the embodiment of the Father was tangible. It took a specific revelation to reveal that concept. So, you have no real point to make here.


However, it is a good lead in to another aspect of this discussion, concerning the nature of God. When God is presented in the Bible, the member of the Godhead being referred to is always shown to have a location. How is God "omnipresent"?

"God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness" (DBY, 24).


-7up

[seven7up]

7UP: Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world.

You are thoroughly ignorant of Constantine's role in Nicea. Eusebius said that Constantine didn't care what conclusion they came to, only that a conclusion was reached to stave off chaos.

I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power. The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.

7UP: The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.

The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis).

"Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all. Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.

There is only one God, ...

LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.

(God is) unchangeable in His eternal Godhood.

There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".

As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense. So, what do you mean by unchangeable "in His eternal Godhead"?

The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense. That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).

(God is) uncreated.

The creeds often say that Jesus is "begotten, not made". Yet again, the definition of "begotten" must be changed entirely.

There exists within that one substance we call God 3 distinct centers of consciousness,...

The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?

The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism". 3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics. They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them. That is an LDS point of view. Welcome to the club. Of course you cannot say that, because you have already defined it as a "single Being". Again, contradictions arise.

...if you preserve monotheism as the central key.

It also depends on how you define "monotheism", which is also a term not found in the scriptures. It just goes back to the concept of "one God". In what sense are they "one"? Jews will argue with you and say that you are not a "monotheist".

7UP: What does it mean to be "co-equal"?

It means that one is not "less God" than another.

I agree that Jesus is "fully God". Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority. So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion. As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.

You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.

None of them "became God".

The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity. However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

They are all 3 fully God, yet there is only one God.

We have 3 full glasses of water. How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?

One can not be taken away from being God, ....

I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.

... nor can any other being "join" them as God.

Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible We can become "like" them though.

-7up

[Cow Poke]

Joseph had a vision.

No, he CLAIMED he had a vision, and he couldn't even keep THAT story straight.

He didn't sit down and eat dinner with God the Father. He didn't touch God the Father.

Agreed, 100%

At that point, there is no way that Joseph could have known that the embodiment of the Father was tangible. It took a specific revelation to reveal that concept. So, you have no real point to make here.

There are different versions of the "first vision" in which he contradicts his own "testimony".

However, it is a good lead in to another aspect of this discussion, concerning the nature of God. When God is presented in the Bible, the member of the Godhead being referred to is always shown to have a location. How is God "omnipresent"?

Because He is God. The ONE TRUE God, everlasting.

"God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness" (DBY, 24).

God is spirit. He is not a man in a physical body.

[seven7up]

In a spiritual sense in that He created our spirits. In the same metaphorical sense as Euclid was the "Father" of geometry.

That is your uninspired opinion, as there is a very direct comparison to what kind of sense we are to understand God as our Father:

He did not create the Son. He created us.

The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense. All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29). Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense. Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:

"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)

He is the prototokos, which here emphasizes His pre-eminence over all creation, not a numerical order of His "birth". That's why, in Col 1:15, He is called "prototokos pases ktiseos" or "firstborn of all creation". If we look at Jeremiah 31:9, we see an example which really shows how the most prominent to God was actually called "my firstborn" (Ephraim). Although Manassah was actually the firstborn child (Genesis 41:50-52), God chose Ephraim and thus says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). If we take your numeric order literally, ...

You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".

7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

Yes, comparing Him to them because the Jews were worshipping the angels instead of their rightful King. But it in no way EQUATES them.

I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.

Jesus is not considered of the same species as those whom God "makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire". The writer is stressing the different roles that the Son plays and the angels play. He is not saying they are the same species.

We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.

7UP: The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity.

And thus, not at all like His Father or us, who all had/have to be granted our perfection based on another's righteousness.

You are wrong Bill. The theory, from the moment that Joseph suggested it, was that Jesus was following the footsteps of God the Father, doing what God the Father had done. I can demonstrate that to you on another thread if you would like.

7UP: ... as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was.

Sorry, but no. There are several times where a literal "first born" child did not receive God's title of "first born".

Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.

7UP: He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh.

I have no problem with this statement. But, again, this does not imply that there were other options to choose from, nor that the Son and angels (or the bene elohim) were "offspring" in the same manner.

Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner? They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.

7UP: So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position.

No it doesn't. It makes Jesus "just another angel" ...

Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature. Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.

7UP: By inheriting the name of the Father,

He inherited the name/title "King of the Jews"

Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title. You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.

7UP: and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.

Again, the Jews were His "fellows", not the gentiles, and certainly not the angels.

"Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse? The Jews? That is ridiculous Bill. The context is clearly speaking of the angels, the sons of God. God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits.

7UP: Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position.

It was teaching no such thing. It was teaching the Kingship of Jesus over Israel.

Look again Bill. It was teaching the superiority of Jesus over the other spirits (angels / sons of God). Your attempt to limit the scope of the Kingship of Jesus to just "the Jews" is not going to work. Anybody at all can look at the concept of the passage and see that the scope is much larger than that. it is Heavenly, not earthly. It is Universal, not local. The section we are looking at is introduced with God "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Jesus was appointed heir of ALL THINGS. Not just heir of a single nation, the Jews. After speaking of Jesus being "anointed" from from his "fellows", verse 10 states: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands". The scope is larger than you claim.

7UP: In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”

The context here is not the number of gods, but the operation of the persons with each other. Justin was discussing with Trypho the impossibility of a strictly unipersonal monotheistic God when the scriptures say that He is not unipersonal. Justin says later “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Justin never directly mentions that there is only one God because Trypho and he already agree on it. What He is arguing for is that there are multiple persons in the one God, and that the Son was who appeared to the Partiarchs.

His words and doctrine matches LDS teachings far closer than they match your "Trinity" views. The Trinity had not yet been invented. Read it again, including the quote from Justin that you yourself provided. You will find no concept of God being a "single essence". You find Jesus being referred to as an Angel and "another God". Just as I have explained, the "other angels" are referred to as those who are "fellows" who reverence Jesus: "the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him".

7UP: All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title.

No it is not. It is a description of the amount of glory radiating from someone. ... In fact, this glory is to be given to Christians who overcome the world (See Rev 2:28)

The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text. They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16). The idea is that we will reflect His perfect brightness, he shall shine like Him, the morning star, and share His kingly glory. None of your deflecting can change the fact that these titles refer to the same kind of being.

7UP: As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".

As reflections of God's glory, they were radiant beings, ...

No doubt.

The strength of the LDS position is far better than you are willing to admit.

-7up

[seven7up]

There are different versions of the "first vision" in which he contradicts his own "testimony".

Right. They contradict. Just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "contradict" each other. Oh, and stop trying to change the subject.

God is spirit.

So are you. So are angels. So is Jesus. We are all spirits. Do you really think you can skirt over this topic when debating me?

in 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul wrote about "the spirit of man and the Spirit of God." Elsewhere he spoke of the resurrection of the body and then noted that it is a "spiritual" body (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). He also said things like, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" (Romans 8:9).

So, you cannot throw in verses like John 4:24 in isolation and attempt to claim that it means what you want it to mean.

We are all spirit:

God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 16:22) (Numbers 27:16)

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live? (Hebrews 12:9)

1 Cor 6:17 "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

Also consider the words of Jesus: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…

Tell me Cow Poke, does John 3:6 teach that when we are "born again" or "born of the Spirit", we no longer have a physical body?

God... is not a man in a physical body.

Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God bodily.


-7up

[Cow Poke]

Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

This is an outright lie. I believe Smith was a fraud, and the Book of Mormon is a false witness. I firmly and clearly deny the truthfulness of Joseph Smith.

[Cow Poke]

Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

I believe Col 2:9 in CONTEXT, not just as a "proof verse" yanked out by a follower of a false prophet.

Source: Col

[2:1]*For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; [2]*That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; [3]*In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

© Copyright Original Source

And then there's a warning....

Source: 4

*And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

© Copyright Original Source

I believe Smith was all about beguiling his followers with enticing words.

Source: 5

*For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. [6]*As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: [7]*Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

© Copyright Original Source

This is all about Christ. It flat out says so. Then more warnings against deception:

Source: 8

*Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

© Copyright Original Source

And THEN, after the warnings of deception, we have the truth about Christ:

Source: 9

*For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

© Copyright Original Source

This refers to Christ, not God, regardless of how you want to twist it.

[Bill the Cat]

I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power.

He did not FORCE a resolution. He allowed it to take place. And the conflict had nothing to do with Constantine's power. He was Emperor of Rome regardless of which side won, or if neither side won.

The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.

No. The result was the wholesale rejection of Arius' position in favor of the historical doctrine taught by the majority of the church that did not run after Arius.

"Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all.

So? The Bible never says man has a thyroid gland either. Clarifying statements and terminology are a natural evolution of human language patterns.

Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.

It didn't "originally mean" that.

From: David Hamlyn - Metaphysics - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p. 60.

"For Aristotle, 'substances' are the things which exist in their own right, both the logically ultimate subjects of predication and the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry. They are the unified material objects, as well as the natural stuffs, identifiable in sense-experience, each taken to be a member of a natural species with its 'form' and functional essence. Entities in other categories -- qualities, actions, relations and so forth -- are treated as dependent on, if not just abstracted aspects of, these independent realities.

LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.

No you don't. You use "oneness" as it is used in CERTAIN places where functional relationships are described. You completely ignore the "oneness" when it comes to the places where the actual numerical values are concerned.

There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".

Because that is what makes Him unchangeable and also why. It is because He IS God that He is unchangeable in His person.

As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense.

Unnecessary changes that do not affect His Godhood. Had Jesus never taken on an additional nature, He would still be God. And even after taking on the additional human nature, He is still God. Hence He is unchangeable.

So, what do you mean by unchangeable "in His eternal Godhead"?

Meaning He did not "earn" Godhood, was not "promoted" to Godhood, was not "exalted" to Godhood, etc.

The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense.

Psalm 102 shows that scripture uses His unchangeability to contrast with creations changeability.

There is a God who will never cease to exist. But He is more than eternal. He is absolutely unchanging. Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).

That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).

The concept predates the Babylonian captivity, as seen in Psa 102, so your claim falls well short.

The creeds often say that Jesus is "begotten, not made". Yet again, the definition of "begotten" must be changed entirely.

No it doesn't. Ginomai simply means to bring something forth. It can refer to birth, or something as mundane as taking out a scroll from a box. It does not imply that the thing brought forth is even related to the thing bringing it forth, or the thing it was brought forth from. In fact, Jesus' miracles were said to be ginomai, or "brought forth" from Him. The difference between "begotten" and "made" is simple. Jesus alone was begotten of the Father, meaning He was brought forth from within the Father, while humans were made by God, not coming from within Him.

The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?

Because it is not a location. Just as the "center of your being" is not literally the midpoint of the diameter of you.

The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism".

Because they didn't understand it, just like you don't.

3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics.

No. The characteristics are different too. The single substance neither grows or shrinks.

They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them.

Yet there is not one without the other two. You can not slice one off from existence and be left with 2/3 of the original. Nor can you add to them. They are complete, and have always been complete.

That is an LDS point of view.

No it isn't. The LDS point of view considers "GOD" to be a job title, not a reality of existence. Each successive "god" starts out as "not God" and works their way up to godhood.

Welcome to the club. Of course you cannot say that, because you have already defined it as a "single Being". Again, contradictions arise.

Only when you don't even understand the basics.

It also depends on how you define "monotheism", which is also a term not found in the scriptures.

Neither is the term "incarnation". But 1 Tim 1:17 and Jude 1:25 use mono sophos theos, so the therm has warrant from the scriptures.

It just goes back to the concept of "one God". In what sense are they "one"? Jews will argue with you and say that you are not a "monotheist".

Nonsense poopy pants.

I agree that Jesus is "fully God".

But He was not always according to your religion.

... During his pre-mortal life Jesus Christ rose to the status of Godhood
LDS Conference Report, October 1949, p. 69

so the Father before Him had trodden the same path of progression from manhood to Godhood
The Essential James E. Talmage, edited by James P. Harris, p. 132

Encyclopedia of Mormonism
Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him

So, Jesus was not always God in Mormonism.

Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority.

A function of their being, not an ontological divide.

So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion.

Only for the strawman you keep beating up.

As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.

So? We have 3 co-equal branches of government, but each has a different function. And we only have one government.

You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.

No analogy is perfect.

The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity.

Not according to BYU, Hunter, or Talmage.

However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

So? It was "given" to the Apostles too.

We have 3 full glasses of water.

Fail.

How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?

No. Because if I boil one, there would only remain 2 glasses of water and the volume of water would be reduced by 1/3.

I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.

Even in the hypothetical situation of God sinning?

Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible We can become "like" them though.

As a reflection of who they are. We can not become WHAT they are.

[Sparko]

My other question that I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to: If man has to go through mortality, get sealed to a mortal woman, be a good mormon, etc, to become exalted into a God, then why didn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit have to? Jesus was a god in his premortal existence and did not get a body till later. The holy spirit still hasn't gotten a body. How are they gods? According to the LDS even the Father had to be a man and all that before becoming a God.

[Cow Poke]

My other question that I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to: If man has to go through mortality, get sealed to a mortal woman, be a good mormon, etc, to become exalted into a God, then why didn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit have to? Jesus was a god in his premortal existence and did not get a body till later. The holy spirit still hasn't gotten a body. How are they gods? According to the LDS even the Father had to be a man and all that before becoming a God.

Have you ever wondered if Smith was a God of a planet yet? And is OUR Heaven the "common Heaven" for ALL the planets? Or does each planet have its own Heaven. Cause you can't get in OUR Heaven without Smith punching your ticket, so if he's the God of his OWN planet....

[Sparko]

Have you ever wondered if Smith was a God of a planet yet? And is OUR Heaven the "common Heaven" for ALL the planets? Or does each planet have its own Heaven. Cause you can't get in OUR Heaven without Smith punching your ticket, so if he's the God of his OWN planet....

It is all so confuserating.