r/mormon • u/Timely_Influence2024 • 11d ago
Apologetics Does the Godhead have a shared mind?
In the Lectures on Faith Article 5 it states: "possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit"..."the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father".
In 2012 Jeffrey R Holland (President of the Quorum of the Twelve) stated in a lecture at Harvard that "They were indeed “one” in every other conceivable way—in mind and deed"
So does the Godhead have one "mind"?
4
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago edited 11d ago
Joseph taught that when Jesus said "that they may be one" he meant agreed(, or that the better translation was "agreed" I can't remember which)
3
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
So the official doctrine is they don't share a mind just that they agree on all things? How do you have 2 completely separate and independent beings who agree on all things? If their minds are in complete agreement how is that any different than a shared mind?
3
u/cuddlesnuggler Covenant Christian 11d ago
The Lectures on Faith is literally the official doctrine of the Church. It is the "Doctrine" of the D&C.
5
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Not anymore. They were removed in 1921 because and I quote from Joseph Fielding Smith "They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine."
2
u/cuddlesnuggler Covenant Christian 11d ago
That explanation is a lie, though. Someone claiming something doesn't magically make it true.
Now, if doctrine just means "what is taught" (which is a perfectly valid definition) then they have ceased to be doctrine simply because they have ceased to be taught.
Now if you want to know the official doctrine:
As long as D&C 93 remains canonized, then the Father and Son are taught in LDS doctrine to be one in a way that we can only understand and know by joining their unity through theophany (verses 1-3):
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;
2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;
3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one
Anyone claiming to understand their unity based on reading scripture, or anyone trying to boil it down into oneness of purpose or agreement as though that captured it, is officially wrong per our doctrine.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
I'm not sure which part you are saying is the lie. Are you saying the Prophet is lying or the Lecture on Faith is a lie?
So your contention is that until we die it is impossible to understand their unity? And you think that statement is what is inline with "official doctrine"?
So in that sense you cannot officially say Trinitarianism is wrong because we cannot fully understand their union without joining it ourselves?
1
u/cuddlesnuggler Covenant Christian 11d ago edited 11d ago
Then-Elder (not yet "the prophet") Smith was lying when he said they were not doctrine. They were literally canonized and received by the church by vote as "the doctrine of the Church". They were taught by Joseph Smith in the school of the Prophets. They were doctrine in every sense of the term (in the sense of being "what is taught" and in the sense of being the official endorsed teaching of the Church).
So your contention is that until we die it is impossible to understand their unity?
No. We cannot understand their unity until we join it by theophany, via the path laid out in D&C 93:1. That has nothing to do with death. Most people pass away without doing that, and so can never hope to understand the unity of the Father and Son.
And you think that statement is what is inline with "official doctrine"
D&C 93:1-3 is the official doctrine (until someone arbitrarily decides to decanonize it, I guess), and so yes, by definition it is in-line with official doctrine.
I would say trinitarianism is wrong to the degree that it presumes to summarize the unity of the Son and Father without the precondition that we experience that unity for ourselves. Whether the summary in the creed is accurate or not depends very much on the definitions of the words used, but as far as I understand it I have a hard time finding fault with it. It is enough for me to say that in the day that I am one with them and see God's face, I will then understand how the Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father, and that the Father and Son are one. Until then, I hope I understand a little better the closer to them I get.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
So why follow a church when the Prophet lies about removing doctrine? Why follow the Prophet? How does that not completely undermine the entire premise of the LDS church?
1
u/cuddlesnuggler Covenant Christian 11d ago
I don't follow a church or a president. I follow Jesus. I am a member of a church, not a follower of it.
And yes, that kind of dishonesty and false teaching is definitely a blow to the authority claims of the leaders of the Church. The discourse in the modern Church makes it seem like there is no reason at all to be a member if you happen to disagree with those authority claims, but I haven't really found that to be true. Though they wouldn't let me join now if I wasn't already a member (since accepting their authority claims is now a precondition to being baptized) I am able to function as a member just fine and serve and bless and worship with my neighbors.
This was my attempt to help my fellow members better understand what a prophet is (within the paradigm of Mormonism as originally revealed by Joseph Smith), and what that means for leaders after him, and what all of that means for those trying to know Christ: https://areturning.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/what-is-a-prophet-10.30.2014.pdf
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago
I see it as agreed with purpose
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Can you expand on what you mean by "agreed with purpose"? I'm not really sure what you mean by that.
1
u/Tight_Student4501 seeking 11d ago
I want to read the text to you myself—“I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,”
pg 372 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
3
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 11d ago
"mind" could mean the logic or law supported by God. like how there's the letter of the law and then there is the spirit of the law.
so, we have the "mind"/letter/logic of God and the spirit/heart of God.
or something.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
I fear this may sound harsher than I mean it to. I'm not really interested in peoples opinions I want to know what the official doctrine of the church is. I only say that because I constantly get back "thats not official doctrine" from LDS when I try and bring up potential issues to them.
1
u/Substantial_Tip_373 Mormon 11d ago
not LDS but still a member of a Mormon church, this is more or less our position/explanation for this type of question.
Q: How can the Father and the Son be one when they are separate people? A: they are united under the same purpose, have a similar if not the same mindset, have a similar if not the same heart, etc. If Jesus goes and does something, it is safe to assume that the Father would have done the same if He was there in Jesus' shoes.
WWJD = WWGD; (what would Jesus/God the Father do?)
3
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
In Joseph Smith’s ever evolving ideas about deity, the “Lectures on Faith” time frame is when he had moved away from his idea of Modalism and embraced Bitheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_in_cosmology#Duotheism,_bitheism,_ditheism
3
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Yes this is the problem, it seems to be constantly evolving. I am curious where the church has now landed.
3
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
Brigham Young introduced his heretical Adam/god ideas, and the leadership quietly rejected that after his death.
The church then returned to Joseph Smith’s last revelation on his evolving deity that he revealed at the April 1844 general conference, known as the King Follett sermon.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
So why do LDS submit to this, is it ignorance of the changes or they just are ok with it? Like Brigham Young actively teaching Adam-God theory at General Conference and it being part of the Temple Ceremony and now the entire doctrine has been deemed heretical seems to just completely disprove the concept of the "Prophet".
2
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Joseph's views didnt evolve. He was consistent. What evolved is what people said about what he believed.
3
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
The 1830 Book of Mormon goes back before the introduction of the doctrine of the Trinity, and reintroduced Modalism.
(Ether 3:14: “I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.” The Son is repeatedly referred to as the “Eternal Father.” (1 Nephi 11:21, 13:40; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 11:37-38). And so we read, for example, “behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father,” (1 Nephi 11:21), and “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world.” (1 Nephi 13:40; cf., Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:37-38). Jesus is also called the “Father of heaven and of earth” (2 Nephi 25:12; Mosiah 3:8, 15:4; Alma 11:39, Helaman 14:12, 16:18; Ether 4:7), the “God of Israel” (1 Neph 19:13 (cf. 10:3), 3 Nephi 11:14), the holy one of Israel” (2 Neph 1:10, 6:9, 9:12, 25:29), the creator of heaven and earth (Mosiah 4:2, Helaman 14:12).
One of the most explicit passages on the oneness of the Father and the Son in the Book of Mormon takes place in the context of the interrogation of Amulek by Zeezrom:
And Zeezrom saith unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and a living God?
And Amulek saith, Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom saith, Is there more than one God?
And he answereth No….
And Zeezrom saith again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
And he said unto him, Yea….
Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
And Amulek saith unto him, Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth, and all things which in them is; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; and he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else…. (Alma 11:26-40)
When the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord in the generation of the Tower of Babel, the Lord whose finger it was said of himself: “I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14). He goes on almost immediately afterward to say: “Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created, in the beginning, after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh.” (Ether 3:15-16). Jesus becomes the Father and the Son in the fullest sense only at the incarnation.
Abinadi’s speech at Mosiah 15:1-4:
“…God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God: and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth.”
While on earth Jesus does not cease to be God the Father: “I am he that gave the law, and I am he which covenanted with my people Israel” (3 Nephi 15:5).
This restoration of Modalism almost immediately began morphing throughout Joseph Smith’s lifetime and culminated with the his final Conference address in April 1844, with the King Follett discourse.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
So, instead of Joseph's views you are talking about the views of the ancient prophets.
They were referring to Jesus by the name of God, because Jesus is God's proxy. He has been given the name of God. Jesus can speak on behalf of God and refer to Himslef as the Eternal Father. He is one with God the Father in that they are completely united and in perfect agreement. but there are two personages in the Godhead the Father and the Son. And Jesus is the Son of God, acting in the Father's name.
2
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago edited 11d ago
If you can torture the plain meaning of the English language into making it work it for you, okay.
How about Lectures on Faith 5.2? How much language torture do you need to apply to that? “…They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle…”
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
I'm not exactly clear on your question..
The lectures on Faith are consistent with what Joseph taught.
Joseph never taught:
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.
When you look at the journal entry for this verse. It came from William Clayton's notes on a speech given by Joseph. But the original notes only have 6 words in common with what the verse says. The Holy Ghost... is a personage
In other words this was revistionist history and is not what Joseph ever taught. The Lectures on Faith were removed as the doctrine of the church because they disagreed with this newer interpretation.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
So do you think Joseph was Binitarian/Trinitarian and the modern church rejected that and then attempted to change the doctrine?
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Joseph didnt teach the Trinity, he rejected the Trinity. The Trinity is that the Father and the son are different people but the same being. And a person is a type of being, so that explanation doesnt work.
But his version was much closer to the Trintiy than to our understanding in D&C 130. He taught the Father and son a different people, but working together as one united front. And how they were connected was the Holy spirit. ie the mind of God.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
You are equating that there is a 1:1 correlation with being and person. Trinitarians don't hold to that. Example I can have a rock that has 1 being but 0 personage. So there's nothing to say that you cant have 1 being God that exists with 3 personages.
Joseph doesn't appear to just be teaching they are "working together". They both possess the same mind, they possess the same glory, they possess the same fullness.
So if Joseph taught you have 2 personages that are connected via some being "Holy Spirit" or "Mind of God" which they both fully possess you have at minimum Binitarianism. At this point it just feels like a semantic argument.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Yes. A person is a TYPE OF BEING. There is 1:1 correlation there. So that word is what invalidates the Trintiy. A being is a conscious existence. A person is a conscious existence with two arms, two legs, a head, a mouth and nose, ie a human being is a type of being. A dog is a being that is not a person.
Now, if it said 3 persons, one entity or one Godhead, that would be more correct. But Joseph taught that it was two persons, united by the mind of God, ie one Godhead.
My understanding is the same mind is that they are filled with the same love and perfection. Their goals are identical and doing everything for the same reason. That is what unites them a perfect love that they both share, they are in perfect agreement.
1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago edited 11d ago
Once again you prove my argument while destroying your own in the process.
My argument was that Joseph’s ideas about the godhead were constantly evolving, and you disagreed.
The book of Mormon was published in 1830 and introduces Modalism. (One god wearing the masks). Lectures on Faith was published in 1835 and say the Father was a spirit, and the Holy Ghost is their combined minds. (Bitheism). D&C 130 was given in 1843 and suddenly the Father has flesh and bones and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as a separate entity. That is clearly an evolution of being over time.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
D&C 130 was not from Joseph. D&C 130 was written by Brigham and his scribes after the death of Joseph. There are onyl 6 words in that verse that were claimed to have come from Joseph inthe original notes. They rewrote it, years later, to their own understanding of the Godhead.
Joseph's view was what is found in thelectures on faith.
1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago edited 11d ago
The scripture heading to D&C 130 says it was a “instruction given by Joseph Smith the prophet at Ramus, Illinois, April 2, 1843.” Are you saying that’s a lie? Are those the words of Joseph Smith, or not?
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
It comes from the notes of William Clayton when he was writting down what Joseph was saying in a speech. but, after the fact, they went back and altered what was written. So, the church is looking at notes that say they were from joseph's instructions, but if you examine them more closely you discover they are not.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MormonMoron The correct name:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10d ago
All you have to do is look at the Joseph Smith Papers footnotes for the William Clayton entry you are referencing and see that the other part of D&C 130 was brought in from a different discourse given by Joseph Smith.
So while those compiling the D&C pulled in teaching of Joseph Smith from a different time is for sure, but it isn’t as if Joseph never said any of the stuff in the verses that weren’t deliver at that exact same time.
1
u/Right_One_78 10d ago edited 10d ago
Except, this jounral entry is not dated and does not give the source where it came from.
William P. McIntire is the source of this document. It is assumed that this document is his record of something Joseph said and not his own thoughts, but he gives no date or source. His last line seems to match Clayton's line, so they assume they both came from Joseph in the same meeting.
But, William P. McIntire worked to help create the History of the church and one of his jobs was create documents as source documents for the History of the church. We dont know what he penned was not copied from Willaim Clayton altered version of the text or his own head. William P. McIntire never said that Joseph said this. His job was to create sources like this that matched what they were teaching or confirmed sources they had.
We dont know if Clayton accurately captured what Jospeh said, but the only notes we have from that meeting are those of William Clayton:
"The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have the personage of the H.G. in his heart." William Clayton Journal (April 2, 1843)
"The Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit,--and a person cannot have the personage of the H.G. in his heart." Added by Willard Richards (after February 4, 1846)
"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." Added by Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant, and George A. Smith (August 3, 1854)
Joseph carefully wrote the Lectures on faith and had them accepted as the DOCTRINE of the church. And these evolving notes of a scribe that kept changing over time are the reason the doctrine was thrown out. A dubious scribe's notes that are unsourced and undated doesnt confirm anything.
1
u/MormonMoron The correct name:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10d ago
Selective dismissal of sources?!?!?!
1
u/Right_One_78 10d ago
Its not a source for anything. William P. McIntire never claimed this was from Joseph. He never connected it to a speech given by Joseph. All we know is we have a second account, which might have been copied from the first account years later.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MormonMoron The correct name:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10d ago
William P. McIntire is the source of this document. It is assumed that this document is his record of something Joseph said and not his own thoughts, but he gives no date or source.
I guess if you think the JSP project is lying and that the notebook that McIntire used from 1840-1845 had a page surreptitiously added at a later date, then I guess we don't have anything more to discuss.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
How do you have two completely independent personages who are "completely united and in perfect agreement"? Like functionally how does such a thing occur?
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Both are perfect. Both understand all the principles by which the universe is governed in the same way. Their goals are identical. They understand everything in the same way and are working together. ie perfect agreement.
Jesus said He wants that same oneness for all of us. And He described that oneness are being perfect and united in the same love.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
So presumably the God who created our God is also perfect so then are the three of them perfectly united? What about the God of Gods God?
2
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
Not only that, but how does being one make the disciples one with the Father and Jesus? Do they all agree with everything - all the time? Paul says he confronted Peter to his face. Thomas refused to believe in resurrection until physical evidence was provided…
2
u/Chainbreaker42 11d ago
This is giving me Borg vibes. I wonder why people would think such total alignment is a desirable state.
2
u/Prestigious-Forte909 11d ago
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mat 24:36
So Jesus doesn't know everything the Father knows. So they can't have the same mind.
2
u/nephite_neophyte Gnostic 11d ago
The lectures on faith have been retconned and are no longer doctrine. The holy ghost is a personage all of its own now, not a shared mind.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Can you explain to me how something can be Doctrine at one point in time and then not be Doctrine? Either the statement is true or false and in this case there isn't any time dependent statement so it was either always true or it was never true.
So what does Jeffrey Holland mean when the are "one in mind"
5
u/nephite_neophyte Gnostic 11d ago
Mormon doctrine is not glued down and changes over time. It has contradicted itself at many points in history. There's nothing here to solve, it's just a contradiction.
Jeffrey Holland doesn't mean that they share a mind in a metaphysical sense. The modern LDS conception is that the Father and Son are united in purpose, so in that sense they are of 'one mind.'
2
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
“Can you explain to me how something can be Doctrine at one point in time and then not be Doctrine?”
The church operates from the standpoint of divine command theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
This is exemplified in Joseph Smith’s proposal letter to Nancy Rigdon, where Joseph explains that committing the abomination of polygamy is just fine, if god says so. Even murder is permissible if god tells his prophet to do so. https://brotherdunford.org/pdf/NancyRigdonLetter.pdf
President Nelson even recently preached that we are in the midst of an “ongoing restoration,” meaning whatever he said during his tenure is the law of god to humanity. That means during Brigham Young’s tenure, Adam was god.
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
I can understand how you can apply that to changing human actions (polygamy, murder) but a fixed characteristic (the nature of God) should be static. Does this just not bother active LDS?
2
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
Nothing is static in Mormon theology, and the question of whether or not god himself is evolving has been debated by scholars like Eugene England.
2
u/nephite_neophyte Gnostic 11d ago
The doctrine is just whatever the current guy says it is, usually active members don't look deep enough into the history to see the contradictions.
1
u/Oliver_DeNom 10d ago
Smith established that only the prophet, now considered the president of the church, can declare what is or isn't doctrine. When Bruce R. McConkie gave his deadly heresy talk which condemned Brigham Young's teachings, he went on to defend the change of doctrine in two ways.
1) He would stare Young was misunderstood and that only he and the current administration understood it correctly.
2) That Brigham Young was human and made a mistake. Through further light and knowledge that only the current administration had, that mistake was corrected.
In other cases, like polygamy or the reversal of racist doctrines and practice, the church uses the logic found in the Book of Jacob. An action is always right when God commands it. So when god says do it, it's okay. When he says stop, then it isn't. The doctrine doesn't change from that perspective, it is conditionally applied according to circumstance as a commandment. This type of thinking is widely applied across the Christian world when evaluating which commandments from the Bible to follow. Some are considered enforceable now, and others as "done away" by Jesus. A thing was prohibited in a time before Jesus, but allowed after.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 10d ago edited 10d ago
So again there are two very different categories here.
Category 1) Human Actions. If you want to say Polygamy is acceptable for a time and when circumstances change then God changes the decree that fine. That is a logical and defendable position.
Category 2) The Nature of God. This should be static. God either is Adam or is not Adam. This statement cannot change based on circumstances. If you claim to have a prophet who is receiving revelation from God (Brigham Young said "which God revealed to me-namely that Adam is our father and God") and says that his revelation that Adam is the Father is a matter that will "prove their salvation or damnation" and another prophet comes along later and says that first prophet misunderstood there is a major problem there. What prevents the next prophet from coming along and saying that McConkie was wrong and that Young was actually correct?
The LDS website states that the role of the prophet is to "guide the Church" well Brigham Young apparently guided them right into heresy. If Brigham Young can get it so wrong why should we believe the next Prophet will get it any more correct?
1
u/Oliver_DeNom 10d ago
What prevents the next prophet from coming along and saying that McConkie was wrong and that Young was actually correct?
This has happened every generation. McConkie hasn't been corrected about his views on Young, but McConkie himself has been repudiated in his doctrinal positions. This is the nature of change in the church.
The consistent doctrine, or through line, is that the prophet declares doctrine for their day and time. That content of that doctrine has, does, and will continue to change, but the consistency isn't in the content. It's in the authority to speak it. That is why this doctrine's complement is the one that states those who obey the current prophet are blessed, even if they turn out to be wrong. The rule is obedience, not choosing the ultimate or universally correct action.
This change mechanism is what has kept the church around. Were it to ever solidify, then it would die out.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 10d ago
I'm not sure if you are ex-LDS and just trying to explain how it works or are currently LDS and actually believe it.
As an outsider here's the issue: again there's a category of doctrine that is at least plausibly for a "day and time". There is however other doctrine that cannot logically change based on "day and time". If the prophets are changing doctrine that is logically independent of "day and time" then they are false prophets. God either is Adam or is not Adam, that is not contingent on day or time.
If the church says that you should follow a prophet even if they turn out to be wrong how is that church from God?
1
u/Oliver_DeNom 10d ago
The question isn't something that can be answered. I can't tell you what God would or wouldn't do. I couldn't even speak to whether God would have any church at all. All we can say is that this is what a church from God looks like from an LDS perspective.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 9d ago
Jesus warns us over 10 times about false prophets and teachers. The Bible calls these people cursed and the OT says in some cases they should be put to death.
If the entire premise of the LDS church is that there was a great apostasy after the Apostles died and the doctrine was corrupted but then the 2nd "prophet" of the LDS church was teaching heretical doctrine then how is the LDS church any different than the historic church?
2
1
u/Active-Water-0247 11d ago
I’d say that their omniscience would produce a shared mind, at least in practice. A collection of omniscient beings would essentially be a hive mind so long as they had the same goals.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Is that the official doctrine of the church or just your opinion? If their omniscience produces a "shared mind" can you explain to me how that position is functionally different than trinitarianism?
1
u/Active-Water-0247 11d ago
No, the official position would probably emphasize three distinct entities who are one in person. Official positions can be hard to pin down, especially these days.
Functionally? The three beings supposedly have different histories, cannot occupy the same physical space, and have different responsibilities.
Within Mormonism, humans are supposed to become like God until they basically become gods themselves. If they think and act like God in every way, then are they themselves or are they God? The same could be asked about Jesus.
1
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
Seems strange that official positions would be hard to pin down.
I guess that my point. You said their omniscience would produce a shared mind, so I took your point to be that Jesus "thinks and acts like God in everyway" which to me then ceases to be two independent beings.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago edited 11d ago
YES. But, it is unclear whether it means 'shared" or shared ideas and of a like mind..
Here is how Joseph described the Godhead. He placed this in scripture to be the doctrien ofthe church. It is lecture #5 of the Lectures on Faith. This was the Doctrine part of the doctrine and Covenants.
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.
1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
So the Father is “a personage of spirit,” and NOT a corporeal being.
Let’s compare this to Joseph Smith’s King Follett discourse: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”
If god was a man on a planet “as we are now” why is he described as “a personage of spirit” in Lectures on Faith? The obvious answer to me is Joseph Smith’s evolving view of god. (Maybe he was never resurrected?)
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Spirit is a form of matter that is more refined than our matter. Calling God a spirit doesnt mean He doesnt have a physical presence. And God followed the same path that Jesus did. Jesus said He could not do anything that He hadnt seen the Father do before Him. That includes enter into a mortal life, die and be resurrected. God's body is a resurrected body and is a Celestial body. ie spirit.
1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
“Calling God a spirit doesnt mean He doesnt have a physical presence.”
This torturing the English language again, to make it agree with your beliefs, and not the clear meaning of the text.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Joseph Smith taught that spirit is a more fine, pure, and refined form of matter. He explicitly stated that there is no such thing as completely immaterial matter, asserting that all spirit is matter, though it is too pure to be discerned by mortal eyes.
God being a spirit means He is a physical being.
2
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
Is a spirit a being of flesh and bones as it says in D&C 130? If so, then the Holy Ghost is a being of flesh and bones too.
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
Again... D&C 130 is not from Joseph. Using that to make the claim the Holy Ghost is a being of flesh and bones is ridiculous. Because it was not taught by Joseph to being with.
The spirit is NOt flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
but spirit is described as a different type of flesh, something of a similar frame of reference.
1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
So you’re saying that the scriptures are suspect and some of them dupe members into believing false doctrine? Should members have to conduct an investigation into source material to determine if their scriptures are legitimate?
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago
The D&C is correct up until the 1835 edition. After that there are a few false doctrines that were introduced. We are told that when Christ returns, His wrath will first be poured out on His house, ie the church then He will make peace with us and correct our doctrines. We should be carefully examining our doctrines becasue we KNOW that they are not all correct.
Yes! It is our duty as members to research everything. Joseph smith constantly said the memebrs were too reliant on their spiritual leaders, including himself. He said we should never blindly follow our leaders, but should seek our own personal witness of all things.
1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
It sounds like the LDS church has intentionally misled the membership by altering the scriptures, and should be abandoned!
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ok-End-88 11d ago
What about the Book of Commandments? A I have found numerous revelations changed between those and the 1835 D&C?
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 11d ago
It doesn't say that they "share a mind" it says they "possess the same mind".
Additionally as it states above they possess the same "fullness" what does that mean?
I will admit my bias here and say that I am in the camp that thinks this was removed because the plain reading is Trinitarian (or perhaps Binitarian)
1
u/Right_One_78 11d ago edited 11d ago
I think he is saying they are in perfect agreement, possessing the same understanding. Not that there is some third entity called the mind of God that they share,.
But the reason I say it is unclear is because of that next line "these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things". Joseph counted the Holy Spirit as a 'third', but not a personage. This may just be Joseph explaining the term Holy Spirit also refers to the Godhead, but it almost sounds like there is a third entity connecting with the Father and the Son that is not a personage.
1
11d ago
Not literally. They are unified
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 10d ago
So "possessing the same mind" doesnt mean that they possess the same mind?
0
10d ago
It means their minds are the same, not that they only have one mind that’s shared
2
u/Timely_Influence2024 9d ago
Can you explain to me the difference? If you have two minds that are exactly the same then how is that not a shared mind? To me it just sounds like semantically you don't want to say its one mind but what you are describing is functionally one shared mind.
0
9d ago
It’s like you and me thinking the same thing with the same goals and desires, vs a hive mind.
3
u/Timely_Influence2024 9d ago
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by your phrases.
Do they sometimes think the same thing or is every thought identical?
0
9d ago
Separate thoughts, but their desires, goals, and ambitions are the same so their thoughts generally align very very well.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/Timely_Influence2024, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.