Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!mephisto!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Nature of the Godhead (was Re: Book of Mormon ... Mother of God) Message-ID: Date: 26 Sep 90 07:43:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 77 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [I've been trying to get some of our LDS correspondents to clarify their concept of God. In response to a posting from Daniel Zappala I was trying to see whether they believe in one God or three. >The issue is what you mean by "God". Typically God has been seen as the >only self-existent thing, the source of everything else. I don't see how >there can be more than one of those. --clh] Yes, this seems to be the heart of the issue, what we mean by "God." When discussing LDS beliefs many Christians are also at a disadvantage in that the LDS have nothing to compare with the creeds etc. that others often use to define the term. We are urged to study the scriptures and learn from the Holy Ghost. Therefore while you can find a lot of unofficial stuff on the subject, there is simply no LDS equivalent to the Nicene or Apostles Creeds. If anyone is interested in doing a study of this for themselves I would suggest getting a copy of the LDS "triple combination" (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) and looking in the index under such terms as God the Father, Jesus, Holy Ghost, Godhead, etc. Try to get a printing after 1981 when the index was greatly improved. It would also be useful to look up the same topics in the the topical guide of the LDS printing of the Bible from the same time frame. Another good source is "A Doctrinal Dissertation on the Father and the Son" in _Messages of the First Presidency_ Vol 5 pp 26-34, James R. Clark, Ed. Bookcraft, 1971. I will try to explain how I see things from my own study but be advised that this is in no way official. Usually when the LDS us the word "God" we are referring to God the Father. He is self-existent and the source of everything else. A strict reading of your definition of God would leave Him as God but rule out Jesus and the Holy Ghost. However I think few if any LDS would define God so narrowly. Your "subsidiary" God mentioned below fits my idea of Jesus, he is the son of the Father and subordinate to His Father. However I still consider Him to be a God. > From the rest of what you say, I >assume you are going to say that the Son came from the Father, and >therefore that he is not self-existent. So by my definitions, he >isn't really God. If I try to extrapolate what you mean by God, in a >way that includes even a "subsidiary" one like the Son, it seems to me >that you have to mean someone who has enough power to create a >universe, but is not necessarily the ultimate source of everything. Right (or at least consistent with what I believe). >Note that in my attempt to deemphasize differences between LDS and >classical doctrines I may have allowed something to slide that I >shouldn't have. When creeds talk about "begotten not made" or >"begotten of the Father before all worlds", what is being said is that >the Son is just as self-existent as the Father. "There was not a time >when he was not." "begotten" is being used in a very special way, not >to mean that the Son came from the Father at a specific time (as >begotten would normally mean with humans) -- not even at a "time" >before earthly time started -- but as an eternal relationship "within" >the one God. Well, I and I think most LDS would part ways with the creeds here. We do not consider the Son self existent but take the begotten to mean something close to what it means here on earth. Most would probably think of this in terms of time. (Of course what is "time" in the eternal sense, anyway? I'm not sure our human concept is adequate to include what happens eternally.) He was certainly begotten before the creation of the worlds since He was charged with their creation (D&C section 76). However, I consider him, in a very real sense, "younger" than the Father. > Words become very murky here, and frankly I think there >may be some additional philosophical work needed, but the point is >that classical theology sees only one uncreated entity, which in some >sense "includes" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My picture which I think most LDS share is that they are one in the same sense that we are expected to be one (John 17:21, 23).