Lorenzo Snow Couplet

[JeepMoab]

John Chapter 14 - note the statement in verse 6 "I am the way" - a very clear statement that we are to see Jesus as the example. Also note in verse 9 following where Philip asked to see the Father and Jesus responds that seeing him is seeing the Father and Jesus explains why - because the Father is in him and therefore his works are the example of the Father. Therefore Jesus is the example of the Father through his works

Whoa. There are a lot of misrepresentations here- half truths and maybe whole lies. Not on your part, per se, but on the interpretation of these Scriptures given or taught to you. For example, Jesus isn't the example of God, He is the example Christians are to exemplify. If Jesus was just an example, a copy of the orignial so to speak, He would have said Gof or My Father is the way, the truth and the life. He didn't. He said explicitly that He is the way, the only way. That isn't an example of anything it's a categorical statement of a fact. Someone has told you something they have misunderstood, it seems.

And, when Thomas saw Jesus' hands and feet he said, "My Lord and my God". Thomas didn't say my example of God. That would have been blasphemy (to every Jew) if it wasn't true. And Jesus would have been forced to stop and correct Thomas if he wasn't God. Remember when Jesus rebuked Peter for doing much less than blasphemy?

Part of the problem is that you are referencing scripture out of context. Isaiah is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic format and in the specific context of 43:10 Isaiah is talking specifically about Pagan images connected to Baal. If you had read the entire chapter 43 of Isaiah and understood the epoch of Baal (the birth, death and resurrection of Baal and how Baal was believed to have redeemed mankind) perhaps you could better understand this scripture. In short Isaiah is saying poetically that the graven images of Baal have nothing at all to do with the redeemer of Israel - not in the past, not in the present and not at any time in the future.

Actually, I'm not. Throughout the Bible it an often repeated phrase that there is only one God. This passage, even by itself, is clear of that as well. Either God is lying to/through Isaiah (which would make Him a total fraud and false being and unworthy of my praise) or there is only one God. Other passages include: Deut. 4:35, 39, Neh. 9:6, Job 41:11, Isaiah chapters 40-48, to name a few).

Also, from my reading of Is. 43 God is comforting His people. I don't anything even resembling baal.

Again this is not just an LDS interpretation. There are a number of scholars (Non-LDS Christian and Jewish) in published commentary concerning the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scriptures. Not just any old commentary but recognized as the authority by the Dead Sea Scroll Society.

Well, I have never heard of that interpretation before. I've never heard of a DSS society, either. I believe we ought never contradict, deny or reject clear Scripture and Is. 43:10 is very clear.

Again you are relying on traditional Medieval interpretations of scripture from the Dark Ages.

Since you are interested (at least pretend to be) in the prophesies of Isaiah - consider Chapter 2 verse 2. Did you know that in the language of the native Ute peoples that their word "utah" means "Top of the mountains". The LDS wanted to name their state Deseret but anti Mormons forced the name Utah the last minute in congress - fulfilling that particular Isaiah scripture as only G-d could have done?

The Traveler

Dark Ages? How is the Dead Sea Scrolls (found in 1947 or 48) Dark Age material? They were written long before the DA and found long after. And, we have found numerous manuscripts that concur and reinforce the manuscripts from long ago. So, old or not they have been verified to be accurate. Who are your sources? They seem to be a bit fringe to me.

I am interested in God's truth- prophecy and history. There is a lot I don't know but there is a lot I do. According to the series 'How the states got their name?' Utah was named Utah because the Indians here were called Utes. I don't know what the word means in Ute. I do know that Deseret, the LDS given name, means 'honey bee'. I can't find that definition for that word anywhere in any other language, though. And, I don't know if they were anti-Mormons or not who named Utah- all I know is Congress named the states as they chose. My birth city and state, Indianapolis, Indiana, are 'Indian' names, too. Seems Congress did that quite a bit.

[bytebear]

Jesus is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. As such they have different roles. When Jesus and other say He is the way, it means the way in which we come to the Father. Jesus is the great Mediator between Man and God (the Father). And even though they constitute "one God" Jesus is still not the Father.

no man cometh unto the Father, but by me: John 14:6 .

one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 1 Tim. 2:5 .

he is the mediator of a better covenant: Heb. 8:6 .

the mediator of the new testament: Heb. 9:15 .

Jesus the mediator of the new covenant: Heb. 12:24

[JeepMoab]

Jesus is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. As such they have different roles. When Jesus and other say He is the way, it means the way in which we come to the Father. Jesus is the great Mediator between Man and God (the Father). And even though they constitute "one God" Jesus is still not the Father.

no man cometh unto the Father, but by me: John 14:6 .

one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 1 Tim. 2:5 .

he is the mediator of a better covenant: Heb. 8:6 .

the mediator of the new testament: Heb. 9:15 .

Jesus the mediator of the new covenant: Heb. 12:24

Jesus is both man and God. The Bible informs us that there are Three Persons in the Godhead (Trinity) and each have a special job to perform but each Person is 100% God. And, as such Jesus is both the Son of God and the son of man by virtue of His earthly (female, human) birth. So your are correct. But, we also have to remember that where there is clear Scripture we can't arbitrarily decide differently. Jesus is said to be God in quite a few books in both Testaments. I don't know how anyone can say Jesus isn't God when the Bible repeatedly says He is. A few of them are:

Is. 7:14 calls Jesus Immanuel- which means God with us. Not a God or another God but God. Also the word God is a title, not a name. Since there is only one God (the Bible says) Jesus is Him.

Mt. 1:23 again calls Jesus Immanuel and then states that it means 'God with us'.

Jn. 1:1 tells us Jesus is God.

1 Tim. 3:16 tells us God was manifested in the flesh.

Revelations repeatedly says Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Either there are two firsts and two lasts (thus Jesus is a liar) or He is the 'First', the 'Last', the 'Alpha', the 'Omega' the 'Beginning', and the 'End'.

And, when Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God" he was either blapheming- which Jesus should have immediately stopped him from or rebuked him for doing - or Jesus is God. They stoned/killed people for blasphemy back then. Plus, there are numerous verses in both Testaments that say there is only one God. So Jesus would be Him.

Also, in my 1830 BoM reprint it tells us Jesus is God, the eternal and everlasting Father and that Mary is the mother of God. So even the LDS church teaches (or taught) Jesus is God.

Edited April 17, 2013 by JeepMoab
added "(or taught)"

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't believe Bytebear is arguing that Jesus is not God. Indeed, Mormon teaching identifies Jesus with Jehovah.

What mainstream Mormonism teaches is that there's a separate character called "The Father", and that references in scripture to "the Father" may (depending on context) refer either to Jesus/Jehovah or to His Father, Elohim. Jehovah wields the Father's authority and speaks in His behalf. Jehovah can also be called a "father" in His own right because it is He who created the earth and He to whom our souls are begotten when we are born again. Jesus is God. His Father is also God. They are separate beings, separate individuals and identities and substances; but united in purpose, counseling together and acting in perfect harmony.

The fact that this is not always spelled out perfectly clearly in the Bible - or in the Book of Mormon - or even in very early Mormon writings - is an example of why the Church believes in continuing revelation. (Exhibit A.). Nevertheless, Mormons find the scriptures Bytebear cites as convincing arguments against a Trinitarian notion of God. We simply cannot agree with the idea that the Lord's prayer, the great intercessory prayer, the pleadings in Gethsemane or the utterances on the cross boil down to Yeshua bin Yusuf muttering to himself for the benefit of whoever might happen to overhear. He addressed those statements to His Father; and we accept them as such.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

Yes, Mormons believe Jesus is God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are/is one God. There are verses in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that verify this. However, as I said, the Father is not the Son. Jesus is the way. But the way to what? The way to the Father. Jesus is the means,. the Father is the destination. I think Trinitarians are so caught up in validating that there is only one God, they forget the distinction between the Father and the Son.

[mikbone]

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; 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.

[bytebear]

I think one big disconnect between Trinitarians and Latter-day Saints is that when you say "God" do you mean one person in the Godhead (i.e. does God = the Father), or do you mean the collective "God" (God = Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Usually you mean the Father (or Jesus) but usually not both. You say He, but you may mean "they". Secondary to that is the concept of theosis, or becoming like God, one with God, or inheriting God's throne. what does that mean? If I become one with God, does God become a persons of 4? 5? infinity? And yet does God remain one? So, if I can talk of God as an individual or as a collection of persons, why not allow for the notion that God is a collection and not an individual. We are a family (singular that represents a collection of individuals). I believe this is one of the great philosophical truths that the restored Gospel allows us to "see through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

[JeepMoab]

I don't believe Bytebear is arguing that Jesus is not God. Indeed, Mormon teaching identifies Jesus with Jehovah.

What mainstream Mormonism teaches is that there's a separate character called "The Father", and that references in scripture to "the Father" may (depending on context) refer either to Jesus/Jehovah or to His Father, Elohim. Jehovah wields the Father's authority and speaks in His behalf. Jehovah can also be called a "father" in His own right because it is He who created the earth and He to whom our souls are begotten when we are born again. Jesus is God. His Father is also God. They are separate beings, separate individuals and identities and substances; but united in purpose, counseling together and acting in perfect harmony.

The fact that this is not always spelled out perfectly clearly in the Bible - or in the Book of Mormon - or even in very early Mormon writings - is an example of why the Church believes in continuing revelation. (Exhibit A.). Nevertheless, Mormons find the scriptures Bytebear cites as convincing arguments against a Trinitarian notion of God. We simply cannot agree with the idea that the Lord's prayer, the great intercessory prayer, the pleadings in Gethsemane or the utterances on the cross boil down to Yeshua bin Yusuf muttering to himself for the benefit of whoever might happen to overhear. He addressed those statements to His Father; and we accept them as such.

Christianity sees it differently. We see it as God being able to do anything He choses (within reason and common sense- can God create a rock to big for Him to lift, etc. These are mere tactics of distraction from the anti-God people). As He chose to show (manifest) Himself in the OT (pillar of fire by night, cloud by day- many different and varied forms) He has chosen to do so in this the last dispensation of time- the Gospel Age. There are no good explanations/descriptions that I know of that do justice to the Trinity but I'll try (If I could fully understand God then I'd be Him)- A man can be a dad, an employee and a husband. While he is doing each one he doesn't stop being the other two. He simply has a job to perform as each while he is in each position. Jesus is the only God but He also became the full price paid for our sins on the Cross at Calvary. While a man He laid down a portion of His Godhood (for example, He couldn't be everywhere at once). And, since God, the Father is a Spirit and He had to provide someway for our forgiveness God had to become a man like us, Hebrews says. What Jesus did down here was for us to see, hear and accept for our salvation. When or if we say God can't be more than one Person we severely limit God's ability and, really, try to say we understand His purposes more than He. I find no evidence (and I've looked! haha) to say Jesus is another God or not the one, true God. I've seen no evidence that those who say such are from God, either. Sure, they say they are but where is the proof that they are other than their 'own' words to that effect? There are none. So until I am shown or find clear proof I have to stand pat that Jesus is the only God manifested in the flesh to die for my sins and offer me free and forever life with Him if I will repent of my sins and live to the best of my ability what His Word says. That is the Christian perspective.

Edited April 17, 2013 by JeepMoab

[mikbone]

(If I could fully understand God then I'd be Him)

I was hoping you would comment on the original content of this thread. I didn't think you would have agreed with Lorenzo Snows couplet, but there you have it...

[JeepMoab]

Yes, Mormons believe Jesus is God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are/is one God. There are verses in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that verify this. However, as I said, the Father is not the Son. Jesus is the way. But the way to what? The way to the Father. Jesus is the means,. the Father is the destination. I think Trinitarians are so caught up in validating that there is only one God, they forget the distinction between the Father and the Son.

We aren't forgetting the distinction we are banking on it. God became a man in order to pay for the sins of mankind because the righteous requirement of God demands a perfect and sinless payment for our sins. God made us perfect but we 'chose' to sin. God then had to redeem us but He couldn't find any other way or person who could (Is. 59:15-17). So, He became the payment by becoming a human. Hebrews says He became a man like us, signifying that we were human then God became a human to be the full payment (propitiation) for all sin. 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of this to some degree as well- we are flesh first then we become spirit. Since God is a Spirit He had to become flesh, like us, and be one of us to die for us. (Hebrews 2:17)

[Traveler]

Whoa. There are a lot of misrepresentations here- half truths and maybe whole lies. Not on your part, per se, but on the interpretation of these Scriptures given or taught to you. For example, Jesus isn't the example of God, He is the example Christians are to exemplify. If Jesus was just an example, a copy of the orignial so to speak, He would have said Gof or My Father is the way, the truth and the life. He didn't. He said explicitly that He is the way, the only way. That isn't an example of anything it's a categorical statement of a fact. Someone has told you something they have misunderstood, it seems.

And, when Thomas saw Jesus' hands and feet he said, "My Lord and my God". Thomas didn't say my example of God. That would have been blasphemy (to every Jew) if it wasn't true. And Jesus would have been forced to stop and correct Thomas if he wasn't God. Remember when Jesus rebuked Peter for doing much less than blasphemy?

Actually, I'm not. Throughout the Bible it an often repeated phrase that there is only one God. This passage, even by itself, is clear of that as well. Either God is lying to/through Isaiah (which would make Him a total fraud and false being and unworthy of my praise) or there is only one God. Other passages include: Deut. 4:35, 39, Neh. 9:6, Job 41:11, Isaiah chapters 40-48, to name a few).

Also, from my reading of Is. 43 God is comforting His people. I don't anything even resembling baal.

Well, I have never heard of that interpretation before. I've never heard of a DSS society, either. I believe we ought never contradict, deny or reject clear Scripture and Is. 43:10 is very clear.

Dark Ages? How is the Dead Sea Scrolls (found in 1947 or 48) Dark Age material? They were written long before the DA and found long after. And, we have found numerous manuscripts that concur and reinforce the manuscripts from long ago. So, old or not they have been verified to be accurate. Who are your sources? They seem to be a bit fringe to me.

I am interested in God's truth- prophecy and history. There is a lot I don't know but there is a lot I do. According to the series 'How the states got their name?' Utah was named Utah because the Indians here were called Utes. I don't know what the word means in Ute. I do know that Deseret, the LDS given name, means 'honey bee'. I can't find that definition for that word anywhere in any other language, though. And, I don't know if they were anti-Mormons or not who named Utah- all I know is Congress named the states as they chose. My birth city and state, Indianapolis, Indiana, are 'Indian' names, too. Seems Congress did that quite a bit.

I did not say Isaiah is from the Dark Ages - I said much of Traditional Christian interpretation is from the Dark Ages. What I offered to you is a prophesy in Isaiah that the the L-rd would establish something in the "top of the mountains" (Utah). I also find it interesting that you use the term "Indian" for a people that have nothing to do with India. When Traditional Christians came to the Americas there were over 40 million Native Americans now there are less than 4 million - What does that tell you about Traditional Christians? One particular race of Native Americans (The Lucayans) refused to covert to Traditional Christianity (not even a single convert) and were wiped out completely in less than 100 years of their discovery - today there is no sign of their DNA in any existing individual or population. What is profoundly interesting about these people is that they lived in peace without weapons or even a word in their vocabulary for war. They prospered for many hundreds of years until discovered by Traditional Christians. History does not record even a single Traditional Christian coming to their defense or morning their demise at the time it occurred.

Did Jesus say "By their works you shall know them"? Here is another question - When did Traditional Christians with the power to enact laws first decide to pass a law forbidding the murder of individuals and confiscation of personal property of someone that did not believe in or was not a member of the prevailing "Christian" sect or religion?

The Traveler

[JeepMoab]

I did not say Isaiah is from the Dark Ages - I said much of Traditional Christian interpretation is from the Dark Ages.

But we were talking about Isaiah.

What I offered to you is a prophesy in Isaiah that the the L-rd would establish something in the "top of the mountains" (Utah).

If that is true then why did JS and other teach Missouri was Zion, the 'only' gathering place? There are no moutains there.

I also find it interesting that you use the term "Indian" for a people that have nothing to do with India. When Traditional Christians came to the Americas there were over 40 million Native Americans now there are less than 4 million - What does that tell you about Traditional Christians? One particular race of Native Americans (The Lucayans) refused to covert to Traditional Christianity (not even a single convert) and were wiped out completely in less than 100 years of their discovery - today there is no sign of their DNA in any existing individual or population. What is profoundly interesting about these people is that they lived in peace without weapons or even a word in their vocabulary for war. They prospered for many hundreds of years until discovered by Traditional Christians. History does not record even a single Traditional Christian coming to their defense or morning their demise at the time it occurred.

I actually wondered about using that term, instead of Native Americans (which they aren't that, either- they are from Mongolia. Nor are they Jews as some have categorically said they were.), but decided it would be ok without explanation. I was wrong. haha.

Did Jesus say "By their works you shall know them"? Here is another question - When did Traditional Christians with the power to enact laws first decide to pass a law forbidding the murder of individuals and confiscation of personal property of someone that did not believe in or was not a member of the prevailing "Christian" sect or religion?

The Traveler

Yes, He did. But what are those 'works'? According to Jesus they are simply and only- "that you 'believe' in Him (Jesus) whom He (God) sent" (Jn. 6:29).

Christians have done amazingly bad things in the name of God. I don't discount that. I abhor it! It's one thing for a so-called Christian to do heinous acts- in the name of God or not. But it is a totally different thing when a God tells people to do heinous acts. That is deplorable. And that's a god I can't follow or believe in. I've read some horrible things supposedly done because God commanded it. I know my God, Christianity's God, would never do that. Why would He die for my sins if He wanted to murder tens of thousands (maybe millions) for no reason whatever? He didn't have to die such a cruel, horrible and, indeed, completely meaningless and worthless death if He wanted to torture me/us.

[bytebear]

A man can be a dad, an employee and a husband. While he is doing each one he doesn't stop being the other two. He simply has a job to perform as each while he is in each position.

What you have described is more akin to modalism than Trinitarianism. Yes a man can be both Father and Son, but not to himself. Jesus is not and never will be God the Father. He will never act as the Father, and the Father will never act as the Son. They are separate, distinct persons (as defined by the Trinity).

A simple Google search will reveal a ton of articles by Christians about this very distinction.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=modalism+vs+trinity&oq=modalism+vs+trinity&gs_l=hp.3..0.1143.4081.0.4215.19.17.0.2.2.1.189.1416.13j4.17.0...0.0...1c.1.9.psy-ab.ljvzZ4AsCD4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45368065,d.cGE&fp=3427c09986e2aec2&biw=1920&bih=913

My favorite was this one:

"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements | Parchment and Pen

(see example #5)

The more I understand the true definition of the Trinity, the more I realize it is a hair away from LDS thought on the nature of the Godhead. Of course Mormons fill in the "it's a mystery" bits. But, when you describe God using the true language of the Trinity, most Mormons would agree on nearly every single point. Looking at the "Shield of the Trinity" Mormons would absolutely agree with that diagram.

Edited April 17, 2013 by bytebear

[bytebear]

We aren't forgetting the distinction we are banking on it. God became a man in order to pay for the sins of mankind because the righteous requirement of God demands a perfect and sinless payment for our sins. God made us perfect but we 'chose' to sin. God then had to redeem us but He couldn't find any other way or person who could (Is. 59:15-17). So, He became the payment by becoming a human. Hebrews says He became a man like us, signifying that we were human then God became a human to be the full payment (propitiation) for all sin. 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of this to some degree as well- we are flesh first then we become spirit. Since God is a Spirit He had to become flesh, like us, and be one of us to die for us. (Hebrews 2:17)

God THE SON became man (i.e. he was born into mortality), but God THE FATHER did not. Again, you are thinking modally and not trinitarianly.

[bytebear]

If that is true then why did JS and other teach Missouri was Zion, the 'only' gathering place? There are no moutains there.

Clearly Smith, by building temples in both Kirtland and Nauvoo and planning several others, had no intention of Missouri being the 'only' gathering place.

I actually wondered about using that term, instead of Native Americans (which they aren't that, either- they are from Mongolia. Nor are they Jews as some have categorically said they were.), but decided it would be ok without explanation. I was wrong. haha.

Most are from the Asian land bridge, others have bits from Norway, Europe, and even Jewish DNA, far predating Book of Mormon times. To claim they all came from one Mongolian region is simply inaccurate to the facts.

Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Just_A_Guy]

Christianity sees it differently.

Well, your version of Christianity, anyways.

I've heard the standard apologies for the Trinity that you recite before; and I simply don't find them convincing. The analogy you offer--that of a single individual in different roles--is itself extra-biblical.

When or if we say God can't be more than one Person we severely limit God's ability and, really, try to say we understand His purposes more than He.

Semantics. I could as easily assert that if we say God can't create a rock so big He can't move it, we're "severely limit[ing] God's ability and, really, try to say we understand His purposes more than He". It all boils down to which attribute of God one deems to be foundational (ability to divide Himself into different roles/aspects/individuals versus omnipotence), and then carrying that attribute to a counter-intuitive extreme.

I find no evidence (and I've looked! haha) to say Jesus is another God or not the one, true God. I've seen no evidence that those who say such are from God, either. Sure, they say they are but where is the proof that they are other than their 'own' words to that effect?

It seems your inquiry has presupposed a very narrow definition of "evidence", as we've discussed here and elsewhere.

So until I am shown or find clear proof I have to stand pat that Jesus is the only God manifested in the flesh to die for my sins and offer me free and forever life with Him if I will repent of my sins and live to the best of my ability what His Word says. That is the Christian perspective.

Mormonism wouldn't disagree with you here, except (depending on how you interpret "manifested in the flesh") to point out that specific individuals such as Joseph Smith (and, in Acts 7, Stephen) had experiences where they saw Jesus standing next to the Father; and to explain the logical implications of such a vision.

Oh, and a lot of self-professed Christians (but not Mormons) would insist that your statement about repenting and making a conscious effort to live according to the Word are not Christian at all.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by JeepMoab

We aren't forgetting the distinction we are banking on it. God became a man in order to pay for the sins of mankind because the righteous requirement of God demands a perfect and sinless payment for our sins. God made us perfect but we 'chose' to sin. God then had to redeem us but He couldn't find any other way or person who could (Is. 59:15-17). So, He became the payment by becoming a human. Hebrews says He became a man like us, signifying that we were human then God became a human to be the full payment (propitiation) for all sin. 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of this to some degree as well- we are flesh first then we become spirit. Since God is a Spirit He had to become flesh, like us, and be one of us to die for us. (Hebrews 2:17)

God THE SON became man (i.e. he was born into mortality), but God THE FATHER did not. Again, you are thinking modally and not trinitarianly.

Actually JeepMoab described the Trinity correctly. Trinitarians use the word God for all persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

M.

[Traveler]

Actually JeepMoab described the Trinity correctly. Trinitarians use the word God for all persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

M.

Then there is a problem in the rhetorical logic of it all based on the Trinity. If Jesus indeed was once a man and in truth having the attributes of man, how can a Trinitarian refuse the particular attributes of man in Christ as an attribute in the Father saying such attribute is void in the Father - especially in claiming that the Father and the son are one? Thus as man is G-d once was cannot be disputed by the very definitions of the Trinity as you say.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, do you mean to say that because Jesus became a man the Father must have become a man too? Is it your understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity forces this understanding? If so, I'm not aware of any trinitarian teachers who would suggest this conclusion.

[Traveler]

Traveler, do you mean to say that because Jesus became a man the Father must have become a man too? Is it your understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity forces this understanding? If so, I'm not aware of any trinitarian teachers who would suggest this conclusion.

This is interesting - and perhaps we should discuss it in more detail. But as I understand the Trinity there is a pervasiveness that demands oneness through out the G-dhead. But for me to discuss this I have to take off my LDS hat and and consider the whole of it from the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture.

In essence - as I understand the Trinity there is no differentiation concerning attributes - especially between the Son and the Father. Thus if the Son has the attribute of man then the Father must also, other wise they would be distinguished in attribute and I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity allows for that? The scripture follows this in that Jesus indicates he does nothing but he has seen the Father do it also. This it a most important notions especially concerning attributes. Therefore if Jesus, as a member of the trinity were to take upon the attribute of man - then so must the Father? Else they would not be one.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is interesting - and perhaps we should discuss it in more detail. But as I understand the Trinity there is a pervasiveness that demands oneness through out the G-dhead. But for me to discuss this I have to take off my LDS hat and and consider the whole of it from the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture.

In essence - as I understand the Trinity there is no differentiation concerning attributes - especially between the Son and the Father. Thus if the Son has the attribute of man then the Father must also, other wise they would be distinguished in attribute and I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity allows for that? The scripture follows this in that Jesus indicates he does nothing but he has seen the Father do it also. This it a most important notions especially concerning attributes. Therefore if Jesus, as a member of the trinity were to take upon the attribute of man - then so must the Father? Else they would not be one.

The Traveler

Do we not believe that if a person in this life did not receive the gospel message that they would have the opportunity to hear it in the spirit world? And if they receive that message, can they not be baptized? How is that? Through a vicarious ordinance. After that ordinance is performed are we going to differentiate whether they were baptized in the flesh or only in the spirit? I don't think so, that is why we have to do it vicariously. It's value is similar to the act that would have taken place in the flesh had the person had the opportunity to do it for their self.

Well if that is equal in value, then all else that is done in the flesh vicariously for another holds the same value as if the person did it their self. This includes all that Christ does for us. The point is, a Savior allows us to receive the act of His sacrifice as if we are making the sacrifice our self in the flesh. It holds the same value. If one is baptized vicariously in the spirit world, we do not believe that the person would have to be born again and then be baptized for their self again. Likewise, all that receive the fullness of the glory of God receive all that was done vicariously for them, including the sacrifice of the Savior. It would not have to be repeated individually. For God the Father to be God the Father, He would have had to receive the fullness, whether vicariously or individually, for us it makes no difference. And Christ seeing what His Father has done could refer to both vicarious acts as well as individual, to us it makes no difference and we would call it the same .. it was done by Him.

The excellent message of the gospel is that we too can receive all that the Father has by our Savior's sacrifice, by the grace of God this is given and by His vicarious act it could be ours. This requires a lot of faith to really take this in, but this is what Christ wants, for us to have that much faith in His redeeming act.

[Traveler]

Do we not believe that if a person in this life did not receive the gospel message that they would have the opportunity to hear it in the spirit world? And if they receive that message, can they not be baptized? How is that? Through a vicarious ordinance. After that ordinance is performed are we going to differentiate whether they were baptized in the flesh or only in the spirit? I don't think so, that is why we have to do it vicariously. It's value is similar to the act that would have taken place in the flesh had the person had the opportunity to do it for their self.

Well if that is equal in value, then all else that is done in the flesh vicariously for another holds the same value as if the person did it their self. This includes all that Christ does for us. The point is, a Savior allows us to receive the act of His sacrifice as if we are making the sacrifice our self in the flesh. It holds the same value. If one is baptized vicariously in the spirit world, we do not believe that the person would have to be born again and then be baptized for their self again. Likewise, all that receive the fullness of the glory of God receive all that was done vicariously for them, including the sacrifice of the Savior. It would not have to be repeated individually. For God the Father to be God the Father, He would have had to receive the fullness, whether vicariously or individually, for us it makes no difference. And Christ seeing what His Father has done could refer to both vicarious acts as well as individual, to us it makes no difference and we would call it the same .. it was done by Him.

The excellent message of the gospel is that we too can receive all that the Father has by our Savior's sacrifice, by the grace of God this is given and by His vicarious act it could be ours. This requires a lot of faith to really take this in, but this is what Christ wants, for us to have that much faith in His redeeming act.

Not sure I understand what you are saying - so I ask this question. Are you saying since a work is done vicariously for another that they have no need to have any interest to be apart of that work or reflect it in their behavior or attributes?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not sure I understand what you are saying - so I ask this question. Are you saying since a work is done vicariously for another that they have no need to have any interest to be apart of that work or reflect it in their behavior or attributes?

The Traveler

How in the world did you get that from what I said?

I said the value of the work is the same ... so not sure why you are thinking I am saying it is less. The value of a person that accepts the vicarious baptism is the same as the person that was baptized here. Is it not?

Similarly, the vicarious work of the Savior can be valued equally as the person doing the work, it is done on our behalf, IF we accept it. I think, "accepting" would include the interest and being a part of the work or reflecting it in their behaviors etc that you are concerned about. I think that is implied in the word "accept". We have to be Christ-like to receive the vicarious work of Christ.

If we accept the gospel of Jesus Christ then His work will serve as our own. There would be no reason for a person accepting the gospel of Christ fully, keeping his/her covenants to have to come back to another mortal world to receive the value of such a sacrifice for their self again. Christ overcomes the world for us. I that is true, in the end, can't we say that we also overcame the world? Then their children could say, "I do what I see my Father do". Will the person who receives a vicarious baptism have to say that someone else was baptized for them or could they simply say they were baptized?

My point is that we don't lessen the value of vicarious work. (just the opposite of what you were suggesting)

[Traveler]

How in the world did you get that from what I said?

I said the value of the work is the same ... so not sure why you are thinking I am saying it is less. The value of a person that accepts the vicarious baptism is the same as the person that was baptized here. Is it not?

Similarly, the vicarious work of the Savior can be valued equally as the person doing the work, it is done on our behalf, IF we accept it. I think, "accepting" would include the interest and being a part of the work or reflecting it in their behaviors etc that you are concerned about. I think that is implied in the word "accept". We have to be Christ-like to receive the vicarious work of Christ.

If we accept the gospel of Jesus Christ then His work will serve as our own. There would be no reason for a person accepting the gospel of Christ fully, keeping his/her covenants to have to come back to another mortal world to receive the value of such a sacrifice for their self again. Christ overcomes the world for us. I that is true, in the end, can't we say that we also overcame the world? Then their children could say, "I do what I see my Father do". Will the person who receives a vicarious baptism have to say that someone else was baptized for them or could they simply say they were baptized?

My point is that we don't lessen the value of vicarious work. (just the opposite of what you were suggesting)

If you remember we began this discussion talking about Jesus coming to earth and becoming a man. This is from the extension of the discussion that as man is G-d once was. You implied that Jesus could come to earth and be a man and do so vicariously for the Father in the same manner that we are able to do baptisms for the dead. I was trying to understand why you made such a comment.

Here is my post:

Originally Posted by Traveler

This is interesting - and perhaps we should discuss it in more detail. But as I understand the Trinity there is a pervasiveness that demands oneness through out the G-dhead. But for me to discuss this I have to take off my LDS hat and and consider the whole of it from the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture.

In essence - as I understand the Trinity there is no differentiation concerning attributes - especially between the Son and the Father. Thus if the Son has the attribute of man then the Father must also, other wise they would be distinguished in attribute and I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity allows for that? The scripture follows this in that Jesus indicates he does nothing but he has seen the Father do it also. This it a most important notions especially concerning attributes. Therefore if Jesus, as a member of the trinity were to take upon the attribute of man - then so must the Father? Else they would not be one.

The Traveler

Notice that my main emphases concerned "attributes" of G-d. I pointed out that Jesus took upon him the attribute of man and my question is how could he have a different attribute than the Father and still be one in the Father - your answer was that he could do that vicariously in the same manner that we do baptisms for the dead. So I am exploring how it is that you believe a person can obtain an "attribute" by the vicarious work of another.

You will note that in my question I asked specifically if if an attribute could acquired vicariously.

The Traveler

Edited April 20, 2013 by Traveler

[Maureen]

This is interesting - and perhaps we should discuss it in more detail. But as I understand the Trinity there is a pervasiveness that demands oneness through out the G-dhead. But for me to discuss this I have to take off my LDS hat and and consider the whole of it from the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture.

In essence - as I understand the Trinity there is no differentiation concerning attributes - especially between the Son and the Father. Thus if the Son has the attribute of man then the Father must also, other wise they would be distinguished in attribute and I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity allows for that? The scripture follows this in that Jesus indicates he does nothing but he has seen the Father do it also. This it a most important notions especially concerning attributes. Therefore if Jesus, as a member of the trinity were to take upon the attribute of man - then so must the Father? Else they would not be one.

Traveler, you have failed to see the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture. You have done this in other threads and posters, like myself, have pointed out your errors but you don't seem to accept that you are in error in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one in physical attributes they are one in essence. They share the same, one and only essence of divinity. Which is what makes them God. Only Jesus became incarnate, lived a human life, died and was resurrected. And he is God with a glorious body.

M.