Conference tecrus::mormonism

    > "God" in reference to the three members of the Godhead does not imply that
    > they are one God.

	While Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and
    eternal, without end.
    (Doctrine and Covenants)

    It would have been better understood to end the sentence with 'does
    not imply that they are one being.'
    
    Steve

As a reference for additional study about the Godhead, note 109 is discussing
the Lectures on Faith.

          I hope that this is the proper place for this discussion.
          If not, please direct me to where a more appropriate place
          would be.
    
          I would like to focus on the assertion that God the Father has
          a body of flesh and bone.

          The following is an excerpt from 4.2 by Allen Leigh:

          Form of God the Father
          ----------------------

          >While talking to Philip, Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath
          >seen the Father" (John 14:9), not indicating he and the Father
          >are one personage because the context of the Bible teaches they
          >are separate, but indicating he and the Father are not only
          >united in purpose but united in appearance.  Even though he had a
          >mortal body when he made those statements, he resembled his
          >Father in heaven.

           Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
           resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
           and bone?

          >As recorded in John 4:24, Jesus said

          >    God is a Spirit:  and they that worship him must worship him
          >    in spirit and in truth.

          >Some people use this verse to substantiate their claim that God
          >is a spirit without a body.  However, in so doing, they use the
          >verse out of context of the Bible as a whole.

           I don't think that is necessarily correct given the reference 
           in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells us that spirits _don't_ 
           have flesh and bone bodies as He apparently did. 

           Notice that the same Greek word [pneuma] is used in both 
           Luke 24:39 and John 4. So we have Jesus saying both that
           God is a Spirit [pneuma - John 4] and that spirits [pneuma
           Luke 24:39] don't have bodies of flesh and bone. 

           This seems pretty contextual to me.

          >So, what did Jesus mean when he said "God is a Spirit"?

          >If Jesus meant that God was a spirit only, with no body, he must
          >have also meant that people would leave their bodies and worship
          >him with their spirits, since we have both spirits and bodies.
          >That doesn't make sense.

           I don't see where it follows that one must 'leave' his body
           in order to worship spiritually.

          >What Jesus meant by "God is a Spirit" is that God fills space
          >with his spiritual influence and that people would worship him
          >via that influence.

           I've always understood God's 'influence' in the world as the
           Holy Spirit. Is the above different? If not, then do you see
           God the Father and the Holy Spirit as one entity?

          Thanks,
          Charlie

    Re: 97.4 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON
    
    Hi Charlie,
    
    You ask some very good questions, as you always do. I especially
    appreciate the peaceful and considerate approach you take in the things
    you write, as well as the thought and research that you do to
    understand the scriptures. 
    
    The LDS belief that God has a physical body is not based solely on the
    Bible. While we do not believe that it is contradictory to the Bible,
    we hold this belief because we believe that God has revealed it through
    the prophet Joseph Smith in latter-day scriptures. An example is: 
    
         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. (Doctrine and
         Covenants 130:22) 
    
>          Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
>          resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
>          and bone?

    I see what you mean. This could be a possible explanation of the Bible
    passage discussed by Allen, were it not for other scriptures, including
    latter-day scriptures, that (for us) clarify this. 
    
>         >As recorded in John 4:24, Jesus said
>
>         >    God is a Spirit:  and they that worship him must worship him
>         >    in spirit and in truth.
>
>         >Some people use this verse to substantiate their claim that God
>         >is a spirit without a body.  However, in so doing, they use the
>         >verse out of context of the Bible as a whole.
>
>          I don't think that is necessarily correct given the reference 
>          in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells us that spirits _don't_ 
>          have flesh and bone bodies as He apparently did. 
>
>          Notice that the same Greek word [pneuma] is used in both 
>          Luke 24:39 and John 4. So we have Jesus saying both that
>          God is a Spirit [pneuma - John 4] and that spirits [pneuma
>          Luke 24:39] don't have bodies of flesh and bone. 
    
    Good point, Charlie. I think we have to see a bit beyond the words to
    find out what the Savior is saying. In the first case, is He saying
    'God is a Spirit and does not have a body so we must worship Him in
    spirit'? Or is He saying something like 'God has a Spirit, and
    communicates to us through His Spirit, and we must worship Him in
    spirit'? To me, the latter one is closer to the message Jesus is trying
    to get across. 
    
    In the case of the passage in Luke, Jesus is responding to the fears of
    the Apostles, who thought they were seeing a [disembodied] spirit. I
    think Jesus is telling them 'Don't worry. I'm not a [disembodied]
    spirit, for [disembodied] spirits do not have flesh and bone as ye see
    me have.' I don't think he is trying to say that the only way a spirit
    exists is without the physical body. I believe there are other passages
    in the Bible that clearly teach that each of us possesses a spirit. The
    spirit is not made of flesh and bones, as Jesus said, but a spirit can
    inhabit a body of flesh and bones. Even God's spirit can inhabit a
    [glorified] body of flesh and bones. 
    
    One great hope of the gospel is the hope of the resurrection. This is
    nothing more than the reuniting of the body with the spirit. Jesus was
    resurrected and ascended into heaven with His resurrected body. You
    will probably agree that he still has his resurrected body, for
    otherwise he would have had to die again. If, as you imply, God has no
    need for a body, then why was Jesus resurrected, and why would we want
    to be resurrected? Jesus taught that he was in every way like his
    Father. Does this mean that His Father also has a resurrected body? As
    LDS, we believe he does. 
     
>         >So, what did Jesus mean when he said "God is a Spirit"?
>
>         >If Jesus meant that God was a spirit only, with no body, he must
>         >have also meant that people would leave their bodies and worship
>         >him with their spirits, since we have both spirits and bodies.
>         >That doesn't make sense.
>
>          I don't see where it follows that one must 'leave' his body
>          in order to worship spiritually.

    Of course not. But if we are to strictly take the two passages that you
    pointed out (John and Luke), we would have to say that since we 'must
    worship him in spirit', and spirits do not have bodies, then we must
    worship God while not in a body. Its a good example to me of how we
    can't always take the context of a word from one place and apply the
    same context in another place. Instead, I think Jesus is telling us to
    communicate to God's spirit with our spirits. 
    
>         >What Jesus meant by "God is a Spirit" is that God fills space
>         >with his spiritual influence and that people would worship him
>         >via that influence.
>
>          I've always understood God's 'influence' in the world as the
>          Holy Spirit. Is the above different? If not, then do you see
>          God the Father and the Holy Spirit as one entity?
    
    The LDS belief is that God the Father is a person who possess both a
    [glorified] body and a spirit. The Son is a separate person who is like
    the Father in having both a [glorified] body and a spirit. The Holy
    Spirit is a separate person who possess only a spirit, and not a body.
    These three persons comprise the Godhead, and are united in purpose,
    and can be referred to as one God. God's influence in the world is shed
    forth by the Holy Ghost who can dwell in us. 
    
    Yours in Christ,
    Rich

Re .4

Hi Charlie,

>          >While talking to Philip, Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath
>          >seen the Father" (John 14:9), not indicating he and the Father
>          >are one personage because the context of the Bible teaches they
>          >are separate, but indicating he and the Father are not only
>          >united in purpose but united in appearance.  Even though he had a
>          >mortal body when he made those statements, he resembled his
>          >Father in heaven.
>
>           Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
>           resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
>           and bone?

Yes, Charlie, I think that Jesus' statement to Philip was broader than just
a reference to his physical body.  The Book of Mormon teaches that a spirit
is not without-shape-or-form as the so-called "orthodox" Christian teaching
states.  A person in the Book of Mormon known as "the brother of Jared" saw the
spirit body of Christ many hundreds of years before Jesus was born of Mary,
and the brother of Jared was surprised that Jesus did have form.  Jesus then
said

    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 3:16)

In addition, I think that Jesus' statement to Philip is broad enough to
encompass the full relationship between Jesus and the Father.  Jesus said many
times that he did nothing but that he was commanded of the Father, i.e. he was
perfectly obedient to the Father.  Thus, as far as his life was concerned, if we
had seen Jesus we would have seen the Father.

Concerning the Biblical scriptures that say that God is a spirit and also
imply that he has a body.  I like the analogy of one's citizenship.  I've
heard that some countries allow dual citizenship with other countries, so
lets talk about "Jim" who is a member of both Country "A" and Country "B".
We could say with all honesty and accuracy that Jim is a citizen of Country A.
Likewise, we could say that he is a citizen of Country B.  To get the most
accuracy, we would have to say that he is a member of both countries.

So it is, I believe, with God.  The Bible says that God is a spirit.  The
Bible also says that Christ is the express image of God (Jesus was resurrected
when Hebrews was written), implying that God has a glorified body.  To get
the most accuracy, we would have to say that God is a spirit and has a body,
for He is both.  Unfortunately, sometimes in our thinking we get hung-up with
"either" instead of "both".

Allen

Re 134.40

We're glad you are asking questions.  I mentioned the 4.* notes because
I wasn't sure how much of the conference you had read, and the 4.* give
a good background for any discussion of theology.

>    Is God = Lord (old Testament) = Supreme Being = Heavenly Father?
    
Note 4.1 explains that we believe in God the Eternal Father.  We frequently
use the term 'Heavenly Father' to refer to Him.  As Kevin said, we believe
He is the literal Father of our spirits.  So, going back to your "equation"

     Is God = Heavenly Father?        !Yes

Note 4.1 also explains that we also believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit or Holy Ghost.  We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and
the Holy Ghost are separate in person but one in purpose, unity, etc.
The term we use to refer to these three glorified personages is 'Godhead'.
Note 4.1 explains that it is proper to refer to any one of the Godhead by
use of the term 'God'.  Thus, when 'God' is used in the scriptures (or in
our conversation) one must use context to determine which member of the
Godhead is being discussed.

Note 4.2 states but doesn't go into much detail that we believe that Jesus
Christ is Jehovah.  That is, prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus Christ as a
glorified personage of spirit was the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah.  As
such, he performed his role under the direction of God the Father.  So,
keeping the use of the term 'God' in mind in which that term can refer to
any member of the Godhead, your equation can also be written

    Is God = Lord (old Testament)      !Yes

Finally, since all three members of the Godhead are God, i.e. deity, they
certainly Supreme beings.  So, the third variant of your equation is

    Is God = Supreme Being             !Yes


Thus, from the perspective of LDS theology, your equation has three variations,
all true.  The key to this is the fact that the term 'God' can be used to
refer to any particular member of the Godhead (even though they are separate
in person).  That is, 'God' is a title indicating stature.

As you and Kevin discussed, we believe that some of us will literally receive
all that God the Father has to give and will become like Him.  Thus, the term
'god' can be used to refer to those who reach that state (I used a lower-case
'g' to imply that those who reach that exalted state are still subservient to
the three divine beings in the Godhead).

Your equation has caught my interest.  Perhaps you would be willing to share
your thoughts with us?

Allen

RE: Note 134.38   BUFFER::ROHNERT  -< A little fine-tuning >-

Allen has beaten me to it. I wrote a response, but upon logging in to 
enter it, I saw his. Gratefully, his contains much more detail, so I 
defer to him.

There is one question, though, that you brought up in the previous 
topic that was not addressed:

>Can we hold out for more [than the traditional idea of heaven]?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hold out'. We do not nor can not
manufacture or negotiate Eternal Life for ourselves, but rather it is
a gift that Father wants us to have, conditioned upon our obedience to
the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a gift he wants us to have *very*
much. In latter-day Scripture, he has said, "This is my work and my
glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Not
necessarily word for word, I don't have my Scriptures with me at the
moment.) We do not bring to pass our exaltation, Father does. 

Does that help? What do you think? 


Regards, 
/kevin 

Re:  .8
    
    Of course we both belong to "reward religions"  as opposed to those
    that have obligations and no rewards.  Your response seemed humorous
    to me at the time when you stated immortality would be "boring"
    and it sounded like you were saying, "so we will add this feature
    and make heaven a more pleasing place for humans that want more
    of a reward than was previously offered.  Thats when I asked if
    perhaps we could "hold out for more" by perhaps not dying until
    heaven was upgraded to our expectations.  

>Thus it is possible for anyone, whether members of the Church or not,
>to wind up with a fairly satisfactory reward after this life, with
>immortality and Jesus' atonement for our sins, if we accept it. In my
>admittedly parochial point of view, I imagine this to be the heaven
>that most peoples and religions are shooting for, and, indeed, it is
>available to them. 

>To me, this is the only kind of destiny that makes sense. If we could
>make it to heaven and be given immortality, but only progress so far,
>it would be a boring eternity indeed. 


                                              

    Re 97.7
    
    The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
    only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.  
    Your response to my question was "Yes".  Your response also tells
    me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
    save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
    Mormon church.
     
    The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity and
    so please bear with me while I try to get a handle on what you are
    introducing.
    
    The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
    book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
    Mormon beliefs.  I also read that there are secret rituals in
    Mormon Temples that of course have to be protected in some
    manner.  
    
    So why the equation?  If I asked, "Do you believe in God?", the
    answer would be "Yes".  I have asked a Mormon, "Is it true that
    Mormons believe they can become gods?", the answer was "Some
    Mormons believe that".  The answers are often evasive and I feel
    that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
    is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
    I am receiving for an answer.  Am I being overly suspicious?
    
     

Re: 134.37
    
> All people who ever lived on the earth are literally children of our
> Heavenly Father. He created our spirits, and we lived with him as
> spirits before we were born on this earth. 

> In Acts 17:29, it indicates that we are the offspring of God, which we 
> take to be literally true. In Jeremiah 1:5, the Lord tells Jeremiah 
> that "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; ... and ordained 
> thee a prophet," indicating that we lived before we were born, and 
> that Heavenly Father knew us then.

I see nothing there to justify the building of such an involved doctrine
as this. The verse plainly says that before we were formed, God knew us.
Fine. That is foreknowledge, without which God would not be God. He knows
everyone and everything before anything or anyone was. God also said that
before Jeremiah came forth out of the womb, He (God) ordained him a
prophet and sanctified him. If you read the whole verse carefully, you
will also notice that this is between "before I formed you" and "before
you came forth out of the womb", so it seems that he was not ordained and
sanctified until after he was formed. 

This even goes against the whole Mormon idea that life on earth is a
probationary period, since, by that interpretation, it seems Jeremiah has
it made by being sanctified before he is even born. 

To be fair, it should also be pointed out that Mormons believe in a 
"Heavenly Mother" too, though that is seldom mentioned. Presumably she is 
be one of "Heavenly Father's" many wives, for polygamy is the norm in the 
spirit world for gods.

In Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul." That is when Adam's life started, not before. 
Notice that God did not put into Adam one of His pre-existent spirit 
children. Man received life for the first time directly from God.

Ed

    Re .11
    
    What is the origin of the term, "Spirit-Children"?

    Re: Note 97.10 by BUFFER::ROHNERT 
    
>   Re 97.7
>   
>   The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
>   only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.  
>   Your response to my question was "Yes".  Your response also tells
>   me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
>   save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
>   Mormon church.
    
    Interesting interpretation. The Mormon church does not pretend to say
    who will or will not become gods. It is not regarded as an "honorary"
    reward for "meritorious duty". It is something that only our Heavenly
    Father will determine. The LDS belief is that man has the opportunity
    to "receive all that the Father hath" (we can become like Him), if he
    will keep God's commandments. This includes worshipping Him alone, and
    no other gods. The reward for keeping the commandments is what we refer
    to as "exaltation in the Kingdom of God". He will judge who is worthy
    of this reward, and not the church. 
    
>   The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity and
>   so please bear with me while I try to get a handle on what you are
>   introducing.
    
    By this, I assume you are referring to the 'traditional' Christian
    Churches. True, this belief is different than that of many Christian
    faiths. Yet in the Bible, Christ himself made reference to the concept
    of men being gods, as He testified that He was the Son of God. 
    
>   The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
>   book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
>   Mormon beliefs.  I also read that there are secret rituals in
>   Mormon Temples that of course have to be protected in some
>   manner.  
>   
>   So why the equation?  If I asked, "Do you believe in God?", the
>   answer would be "Yes".  I have asked a Mormon, "Is it true that
>   Mormons believe they can become gods?", the answer was "Some
>   Mormons believe that".  The answers are often evasive and I feel
>   that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
>   is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
>   I am receiving for an answer.  Am I being overly suspicious?

    I can see why you are a bit suspicious. We don't mean to be evasive,
    and we don't believe in lying to 'protect secrets'. Sometimes we have
    to choose our words carefully, so we are not taken wrong, which has
    happened, even in this conference. I for one am willing to give you
    straight answers to honest questions, just as others here are. 
    
    The temples are sacred places to Mormons. They have been dedicated as
    Houses of the Lord. There are instances of the Lord himself visiting
    the temples. We regard the teachings in the temple with great
    reverence. We do not wish sacred things to be trampled by those who
    have no regard for them. 
    
    Even so, the things taught in the temples are very similar to the
    teachings found in the scriptures, and simply add additional
    understanding. If you want to know what Mormons believe, the best way
    to do it is to read the standard works (scriptures) of the church: The
    Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great
    Price. If you did that, you would have a very good understanding of
    what we believe, including most of what is taught in the temples. 
    
    Rich

    Re: Note 97.11 by CASV01::PRESTON 

>Re: 134.37
>   
>> All people who ever lived on the earth are literally children of our
>> Heavenly Father. He created our spirits, and we lived with him as
>> spirits before we were born on this earth. 
>
>> In Acts 17:29, it indicates that we are the offspring of God, which we 
>> take to be literally true. In Jeremiah 1:5, the Lord tells Jeremiah 
>> that "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; ... and ordained 
>> thee a prophet," indicating that we lived before we were born, and 
>> that Heavenly Father knew us then.
>
>I see nothing there to justify the building of such an involved doctrine
>as this. The verse plainly says that before we were formed, God knew us.

    This LDS doctrine is not based alone on these two Bible passages.
    There are other passages in the standard works of the church that
    are much more clear on this. To us, these Bible passages do tend
    to corroborate the doctrine that we existed as spirits before this
    life, and that God knew us and we knew God.
    
>Fine. That is foreknowledge, without which God would not be God. He knows
>everyone and everything before anything or anyone was. God also said that
>before Jeremiah came forth out of the womb, He (God) ordained him a
>prophet and sanctified him. If you read the whole verse carefully, you
>will also notice that this is between "before I formed you" and "before
>you came forth out of the womb", so it seems that he was not ordained and
>sanctified until after he was formed. 
>
>This even goes against the whole Mormon idea that life on earth is a
>probationary period, since, by that interpretation, it seems Jeremiah has
>it made by being sanctified before he is even born. 
    
    The LDS view is this. Jeremiah, as well as the rest of us, existed as
    spirits before this we were born. The "father of our spirits" is
    Heavenly Father, and that is why He is called by that name. He knew us
    before we were formed in the flesh. Some of these spirit children who
    had been valiant there were ordained to be leaders in the Kingdom of
    God, according to the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.
    Abraham was told that he was one of them, and so, we believe, was
    Jeremiah, and all of the prophets of God.
    
    Even though they were ordained, they still had their free agency to
    choose good or evil. Presumably, there are some who were ordained there
    who have not been faithful in keeping the commandments, and they have
    never realized their potential as leaders in the Kingdom of God. Thus,
    many are 'called' but few are 'chosen', because of their own choices.
    For example, Judas was ordained an apostle by the Lord himself, but he
    did not 'have it made'. His choices condemned him, when he betrayed
    our Redeemer with a kiss.
    
>To be fair, it should also be pointed out that Mormons believe in a 
>"Heavenly Mother" too, though that is seldom mentioned. 
    
    Not mentioned much because not much has been revealed about this. We do
    believe in eternal families, and that marriage need not be 'until death
    do you part', but can extend throughout the eternities. If God is the
    literal 'father of our spirits', then it seems logical that there would
    be a 'mother of our spirits', as well. 
    
>In Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of
>the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
>became a living soul." That is when Adam's life started, not before. 
>Notice that God did not put into Adam one of His pre-existent spirit 
>children. Man received life for the first time directly from God.

    We believe that man receives life from God in three ways: He created
    our spirits, thus giving us a spiritual existence with him before
    mortal birth. He formed our physical bodies and 'breathed' the breath
    of life into our first father, Adam. Thus he gave life to our physical
    bodies. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we may again receive
    life - Eternal Life, to be raised in incorruption and immortality in
    the resurrection, and to dwell in the presence of God, and to receive
    all that He has. 
    
    Rich

    Re: Note 97.12 by BUFFER::ROHNERT 
    
>   What is the origin of the term, "Spirit-Children"?

    I don't think there is a much better explanation than that found
    in note 4.50 of this conference.
    
    Rich

"Spirit children" refers to the pre-earth existence, in spirit form, that 
we alledgedly experienced before we were born in physical bodies. It refers 
to the literal children of "Heavenly Father" (God) and his wives in 
heaven. Oddly enough, although God and his wives have physical bodies "of 
flesh and bone", their children are bodiless spirits.
    
I'm sure others in this conference will elaborate on this...

Ed

>...their children are bodiless spirits.
    
The spirit children have bodies of "spirit matter" rather than mortal matter.
Prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus was a spirit with a body of "spirit matter".
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus told the brother of Jared that we were created
in the image of Jesus' spirit body.

Allen

RE: 97.10

Sorry for not replying sooner, but I don't always have the tyime I 
would like to devote to this conference. Your note 97.10 touched on 
two sets of thoughts, and so I have enetered two separate replies

>    The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
>    book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
>    Mormon beliefs.  

'Expose' implies something that is factual in nature. To use the term
'expose' in describing that book/film is to give much too much credit
to such a blatantly one-sided distortion of LDS teachings. I would
suggest that, if anything, *this conference* probably qualifies as the
most extensive 'expose' of LDS teachings ever written, given that it
not only presents LDS teachings from an LDS point of view, but it also
takes the time to meet the objections of critics, neither of which
"The God Makers" attempts to do. 

>    The answers are often evasive and I feel
>    that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
>    is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
>    I am receiving for an answer.  Am I being overly suspicious?
    
Be as suspicious as you like, just so long as you also try to 
understand. Praying for understanding is a good idea too. This
conference is a perfect example of how the answers to some questions
cannot be condensed into a simple, one-sentence answer. If you try and
evaluate Mormon teachings as independent 'nuggets' instead of as a
comprehensive whole, you will indeed be unsure of the answers you get.

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

RE: 97.10

>    The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
>    only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.  

1) We pray to our Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, as 
Jesus himself taught us to do.

2) The actual commandment is *not* to recognize no other gods - period.
The commandment is to recognize no other gods *before God*. Mormons 
believe in a hierarchy in the heavens, in which God the Father is at 
the top, with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as members of that same 
Godhead, working under the direction of the Father in perfect unity.

Whoever else in the heavens has been granted a measure of the power of 
heaven is part of this hierarchy - *must* be a part of this hierarchy. 
The prophets have told us that there are others who have been granted 
this status, but that does not make them equal to or above God the 
Father or Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost. Nor are these others to be 
worshipped.

I like to think of it this way: whoever dwells with Heavenly Father 
and exercises the powers of heaven is so far above me in glory that 
from my puny little perspective they certainly seem godlike. But I 
still recognize God the Father as the Supreme Being, as I am sure that
these other heavenly beings do, or else they would not have been
granted their power by Heavenly Father. 

>    Your response also tells 
>    me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
>    save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
>    Mormon church.
     
I don't see how you get this impression. I hope the above clears it 
up.

>    The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity...

Within the context of the Bible alone, that is true. But we know that 
Christ taught the Apostles many important, sacred truths which are not 
recorded in the Bible, and we also have latter-day scripture which 
fills us in on many of the gaps.

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

Re .10, .18

To those who have either read or seen "The God Makers", I recommend that
they also read "The TRUTH About The God Makers" so they can have a balance
in their study.

This book analyzes "The God Makers" line by line and explains from the
viewpoint of a Mormon why the information being presented in "The God Makers"
is biased and distorted.


   The TRUTH About The God Makers, Gilbert W. Scharffs, Publishers Press,
   Salt Lake City, Utah, 4th printing, 1986, (available through LDS
   bookstores in your area; $10.95)


From the Cover:

In their book and movies the authors of "The God Makers" characterize The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a dangerous and immoral fraud.
In his response Gilbert Scharffs rebuts this charge and asserts his reasons
for accepting that organization as the true church of the Master.

While the book and the movie make similar charges, this response is specific
to the book.  It is in two major parts: an overview giving brief responses
for quick reference, and a point-by-point analysis that sets out the charges
and supplies detailed answers and explanations.  Using this pattern along
with a simple, convenient reference system that relates the charges to the
answers, this book addresses the issues raised by "The God Makers"--issues
such as polygamy, grace vs. works, the LDS church's alleged ambition for world
domination; Latter-day Saints and the Savior's second coming; the route to 
godhood; temple ceremonies; Masonry, Mormonism, and the "occult"; to mention
only a few.  From his background of doctrinal and historical scholarship plus
research specific to this purpose, and bringing biblical and other scriptures
to his aid, Dr. Scharffs corrects the misinterpretations, misconstructions,
factual mistakes, historical inaccuracies, false premises, and other errors
he finds in "The God Makers", and sets forth the true facts as he sees them.

Despite the offensive tone and the multitude of inadequacies the author
perceives in "The God Makers", the tone of his book is restrained and dignified,
and the content is a reasoned case for the faith and convictions he professes.
Readers of all religious persuasions will appreciate and respect his
approach and will be informed and edified by his book.

Gilbert W. Scharffs received his bachelor's degree from the University of
Utah, his master's from New York University, and his Ph.d (in history of
religion, Bible, and modern scripture) from Brigham Young University.  He
has taught religion at the latter institution and has served as director
of an LDS Institute of Religion.  As a seminary and institute teacher, he has
taught in the Church Education System for twenty-seven years.

    Just out of curiousity, have any of the LDS in this conference read
    or seen "The God Makers"?
    
    Ed
    

>    Just out of curiousity, have any of the LDS in this conference read
>    or seen "The God Makers"?
    
I have read the book. I sometimes refer to it when approached with 
some odd idea about the Church to see if the idea came from there. I
keep the book in a bookcase at home under a damp cloth, lest it burst
into flames while in my house. 

;-)  Just kidding.

/kevin

I saw the movie and also "The Temple of the God Makers" when they were shown
as part of a class on the cults, with the LDS Church being the only church
discussed.  The two films and the group discussion in the class were part of
my motivation in writing note 241 in the CHRISTIAN conference (note 4 in
this conference).

Allen

    That's very interesting, Allen, but, where was this class? It doesn't
    sound like an LDS class.
    
    Ed
    

    THE GODMAKERS
    
    I read about 75 pages of it upon request of a BAC friend.  I tried
    to point out, page by page errors, distortions, out right lies,
    etc., and gave up after 75 pages because there was just so much
    error it was not worth any more effort.  The National Conference
    of Christians and Jews (1984) described THE GODMAKERS as "making
    extensive use of  half truth, faulty generalizations, erroneous
    interpretatons and sensationalism.  It is not reflective of the
    genuine spirit of the MOrmon."
    
      I finally dismissed the whole book as some kind of absurd joke/hoax.  
    Nevertheless people read it or see the movie and actually think it is true!
    
     
    

Ed, 

The class was held at a Pentecostal church in a nearby town.  It was
advertised in that church as a class on the cults, but as I mentioned the
LDS Church was the only "cult" discussed.

I went with a friend whose son attends that church.  I have enough background
in the scriptures and LDS history as well as many years reading anti-Mormon
stuff so I could see the distortions, but the non-LDS in the class took it all
at face value and accepted the film as "gospel".

The class discussion in the weeks after the viewing was carefully directed by
the teacher, and we (the other LDS and I) didn't have much chance to refute the
film.

We were given opportunities to discuss our views relative to the topics
introduced by the teacher, but we didn't discuss the film itself.  The teacher
tried to present information that was from LDS sources and that did represent
our views, and to some degree he succeeded (he has LDS friends and had gotten
information from them).  There were still examples in his lectures in which
he misunderstood our beliefs and took LDS scriptures out of context, but I
felt he was a sincere person and was doing the best he could.  By the time
the class ended, I had written several chapters of note 241, and I gave them
to him for his future use.

I felt the teacher was sincere as a Christian, but I can't say that about the
two films.  The films are anti-Mormon in that they distort our beliefs
and take our scriptures out of context.  They are very well produced and
I'm sure are very influential with people who take them at face value.


Allen

    Well, you've piqued my interest anyway. I'm curious now to check
    it out for myself and see what all the fuss is about! Perhaps, in
    the interest of fairness, some of the LDS can provide us with specific
    errors, lies, etc from the book/movie, and we can explore some of
    these together. Is "The Godmakers" available at regular bookstores?
    
    Ed
    

I've been told it is available from Christian bookstores; I don't know
about other stores.

Allen

    Has it been revealed as to what function or service is performed
    by those Mormons that are elevated to the level of gods?

    Those who adhere to Gospel principles will be elevated to the level
    of gods.  To limit to Mormons would be inaccurate, according to
    Mormon doctrine (else why would they perform ordinances for the
    dead or claim the Church to practice restored ordinances?).  The 
    service or function is the same as that currently of God the Father 
    (the spiritual and literal father of Jesus Christ).
    
    Steve

Re: .30
    
    Correct me if I am wrong, please. 
    I think that means that a Mormon that is elevated to the level of
    god can then govern other planets as God the Father (the spiritual
    and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this one.  The god creates
    spirits and makes the judgements of his creations?

    Is the concept that a man can become a god a new concept invented by
    Joseph Smith? No, for this concept was understood in Bible times.
    
    Ye are gods
    -----------
                                           
    The writer of Psalms expressed this concept beautifully: 
                                                            
         God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among
         the gods. 
         
         How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the
         wicked? Selah. 
         
         Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and
         needy. 
         
         Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the
         wicked. 
         
         They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in
         darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 
         
         I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the
         most High. 
         
         But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 
         
         Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
         (Psalm 82:1-8) 
    
    This wonderful Bible passage bears witness of several things: God
    stands in the congregation of the gods and judges them. There are
    others who are gods who are subject to God. We, who do not judge justly
    are not to accept the persons of the wicked, but to defend and deliver
    the poor and the needy. "Ye are gods; and all of you are the children
    of the most High". Indeed, the most High, our Heavenly Father, *is* our
    father, and we may become like Him. We are gods in the making. Yes, we
    are subject to death, and to the Fall, but we are also subject to the
    atonement of our Savior, and God will judge the earth and all it's
    inhabitants. 

    Many gods
    ---------
    
    While it is true that there are many gods, it is also true that to us
    there is but one God that we must worship, and one Lord: 
                                                             
         For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
         earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 
         
         But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
         things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
         things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:5-6) 
         
    Jesus' Testimony
    ----------------
    
    Interestingly, Jesus referred to the above passage in Psalms, that 'Ye
    are gods', as he testified that He was the Son of God. 
                                                           
         And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was
         winter. 
         
         And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 
         
         Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long
         dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
         plainly. 
         
         Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works
         that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 
         
         But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto
         you. 
         
         My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
         
         And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish
         neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 
         
         My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
         able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 
         
         I and my Father are one. 
         
         Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 
         
         Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my
         Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 
         
         The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
         but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
         thyself God.
         
         Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
         gods? 
         
         If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
         scripture cannot be broken; 
         
         Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
         world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 
         
         If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 
         
         But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye
         may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 
         
         Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of the
         hand, (John 10:22-39) 
                           
    Be Ye Therefore Perfect
    -----------------------
    
    Many were offended by Jesus' testimony that He was the Son of God. Even
    so, many are offended by the LDS belief that man may become like God,
    indeed, that he may become a god. Yet, is it not clear that Jesus and
    the writer of Psalms understood this teaching? Was it not our Lord who
    commanded us to become like God, who is perfect: 
                                                  
         Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
         perfect.  (Matt 5:48) 
    
    We Will Be Like God When We See Him
    -----------------------------------
         
    What is God's intent for us? What is the final fate of them who choose
    to faithfully serve God? To dwell in heaven? Yes. And what will those
    who dwell in heaven with God be like? They will be like God. John
    beautifully taught this, also: 
                                  
         Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
         we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth
         us not, because it knew him not. 
                                   
         Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
         what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall
         be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 
         
         And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even
         as he is pure. (1 John 3:1-3) 
                                       
    Heirs of God
    ------------
    
    Paul taught that we are the children of God, and that we are also heirs
    of God: 
           
         The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
         children of God: 
         
         And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
         Christ; if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also
         glorified together. (Romans 8:16-17) 
                
    We Will Sit on Christ's Throne
    ------------------------------
    
    Yes we will be glorified with Christ. Glorified heirs of God. We will
    sit with Christ in His throne: 
                                  
         Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice,
         and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he
         with me. 
         
         To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,
         even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his
         throne. (Revelation 3:20-21) 
                                  
    They Shall Be Gods
    ------------------
                                     
    The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that those who will receive the Lord,
    and abide in His covenants, will become gods: 
                                                 
         ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set
         there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been
         sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a
         continuation of the seeds forever and ever. 
         
         Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall
         they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue;
         then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto
         them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and
         the angels are subject unto them. 
         
         Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you abide my law ye cannot
         attain to this glory. 
         
         For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the
         exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that
         find it, became ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know
         me. 
         
         But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and
         shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. 
         
         This is eternal lives - to know the only wise and true God, and
         Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore,
         my law. 
         
         Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths;
         and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me
         not, neither do they abide in my law. (Doctrine and Covenants
         132:19-25) 

    Joseph Smith received a vision of the glory of the Celestial kingdom,
    and recorded this: 
                      
         Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God - 
         
         Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things
         present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's
         and Christ is God's. 
         
         And they shall overcome all things. 
         
         Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in
         God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet. 
         
         These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever
         and ever. 
         
         These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in
         the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people. 
         
         These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and
         Christ are the judge of all. 
         
         These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the
         mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect
         atonement through the shedding of his own blood. 
         
         These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of
         the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory
         the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.  (D&C
         76:58-63,68-70) 

    Mormons Only?
    -------------
    
    Is this reward intended for Mormons only? In a revelation received
    by Joseph Smith, he learned that some have already achieved this
    status:
    
         Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless,
         it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did
         not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
         
         Abraham... abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none
         other things than that which they were commanded; and because
         they did none other things than that which they were commanded,
         they have entered into their exaltation, according to the
         promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are
         gods. (D&C 132:36-37)
         
    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all who do no other things that that
    which they are commanded by God will receive this reward. Were they
    'Mormons'? No, but they were obedient to God and kept their covenants
    with Him. One such command is to be baptized by one having authority to
    do so. 
    
    We do believe that the only church on the earth today that has
    authority from God to baptize is the Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-day Saints. Those who will be obedient to God in this
    dispensation will acknowledge this authority, when given the
    opportunity and be faithful in the covenants of the gospel. Those
    who die without this opportunity will receive an opportunity in
    the next life.
                                                                   
    God's plan for His children includes nothing less than that we should
    receive all that He has and that we should become like Him. Let those
    who read this judge: is not this doctrine in harmony with the Holy
    Bible? If we say we believe the Bible, then we should also believe this
    to be true. It is also reaffirmed by latter-day revelation. 
        
    Rich 
                             

Re: .31
    
    I think I might rephrase .31 to read:

    I think that means that anyone that is elevated to the level of
    god can then govern planets as God the Father (the spiritual
    and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this and other planets.  
    The god creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations.
    
    As to what a god actually does, I believe the previous note (.32) and 
    others shed more light on this.  
    
    Steve

    Re: .32
    
    While reading .32, I noticed your quote from Paul's letter to the
    Corinthians (1 Cor 8:5-6) where Paul recognized that there were
    many gods.  I was certainly curious and looked it up in my 1611 A.D.
    version of the Bible.  
    Now you and I both know what this chapter says.  Do you truly believe
    with all your heart that (1 Cor 8:1-6) says that Paul believed in
    the existance of multiple Gods or gods?  
    

Re: .33

>    I think I might rephrase .31 to read:
>
>    I think that means that anyone that is elevated to the level of
>    god can then govern planets as God the Father (the spiritual
>    and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this and other planets.  
>    The god creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations.
>    

The statement as rephrased is correct?  I know that your response was 
crystal clear to you, but in summary you are telling me that a god
creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations?

    re: .35
    
    Yup.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 97.34 by BUFFER::ROHNERT 
    
>   Do you truly believe
>   with all your heart that (1 Cor 8:1-6) says that Paul believed in
>   the existance of multiple Gods or gods?  

    For the benefit of those who may not have their scriptures handy,
    this passage reads as follows:
    
         Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we
         all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
         
         And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth
         nothing yet as he ought to know.
         
         But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
         
         As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are
         offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing
         in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
         
         For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
         or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
         
         But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
         things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
         all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
                              
    He goes on in the rest of the chapter to counsel the saints to avoid
    eating the meat offered to idols, lest it should cause some of the
    weaker saints to lose faith.
    
    Paul is clearly giving the saints counsel on a subject that had been of
    some concern -- eating meat offered to idols. But in the middle of his
    counsel, he makes an interesting side comment -- "For though there be
    that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
    many, and lords many,)". 
    
    Perhaps the gods he refers to *are* the idols he has been speaking
    about. However, to me he seems to say here that there are many gods in
    *heaven* and in earth. Those in heaven would be those who *are* gods,
    while those in earth would be the idols who are *not* real gods. 
    
    I also believe that Paul believed the Old Testament scriptures and the
    words of Jesus, as they both referred to this concept of multiple gods.
    Paul, a trained Jew, would have known of the account in Genesis 1:26
    that reads, "And God said, Let us make man in *our* image, after *our*
    likeness..." He would have known that Elohim, the word used in Genesis
    and translated as 'God', literally means "Gods". He would have known of
    the Psalms passage "Ye are gods", and as a Christian, he would have
    known of Jesus reference to that same passage as He bore testimony that
    He was the Son of God. 
    
    But Paul also knew that, inspite of the existance of multiple gods,
    there is but one that we concern ourselves with. We worship God the
    Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. 
    
    Given the context of the whole Bible, I think Paul did understand this
    concept. Often there are very interesting concepts such as these
    included almost as side comments in the scriptures, but which serve to
    increase our understanding of otherwise little understood passages.
    Even so, I can see how some would see Paul's reference to multiple gods
    as merely being a reference to the idols. 
    
    How do you see it?
    
    A brother in Christ,
    Rich                                     

Re: .37

    I'm back. Sorry I had to leave our discussion.  Anyhow, your interpretation
    of the Corinthians passage is interesting. 
    
    I wish we didn't have to interpret from a 377 year old interpretation,
    it would be easier if we were fluent in 1900 year old Greek.  I
    think you have to use King James, right? 
   
      Anyhow the way I see (I Corinthians 8,1:8) in those areas of interest:
    
>         Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we
>         all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
>         
>         And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth
>         nothing yet as he ought to know.
>         
>         But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
>         
>         As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are
>         offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing
>         in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
>
    I think that Paul is stating here that there is one God and only one
    God.
>         
>         For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
>         or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
>
    Yes, there were those that were called gods, the Romans had scads of them,
    as did the Greeks, and he was addressing folks from Corinth who had been 
    brought up believing in many gods.  Paul was smack-dab in the center of
    the Roman Empire and Rome was far from its decline.  I think that if Paul
    believed that God was simply the chief God, he could have worked it into 
    the theology, made everyone happy about Christianity and added considerably
    to his life expectancy.
     
       
>         But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
>         things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
>         all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
>                              

    And I think Paul meant this too.
    

    Re: .38
    
>   I think you have to use King James, right? 
    
    The LDS church commonly uses the KJV of the Bible, but we don't
    *have to* use this version. Often, other versions can offer additional
    insights as well. 
    
>   I think that Paul is stating here that there is one God and only one
>   God.
    
    What do you think Paul's position was on the passage in Psalms ('Ye are
    gods...') and also Christ's reference to it? Do you think that he
    accepted them as scripture? Also the creation passage in Genesis
    earlier referred to?
    
>>         But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
>>         things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
>>         all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
>>                              
>
>   And I think Paul meant this too.
    
    And I agree that there is only one God that we must concern ourselves
    with, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
    
    Rich

    Re: .39
    
    Back again. Yes, I agree Psalm 82 does make the statement, "I have said,
    Ye are gods; and all of you are childen of the most High.".
    As most of this discussion focuses on the 3 words, "Ye are gods",
    I want to better understand the source.  As you can clearly see,
    I am not a biblical scholar and that is why I am asking you to share
    your background and experience.
    
    Psalm 82 is a song or psalm of Asaph.  Who or what was Asaph?  I
    don't want to assume that I am automatically a god unless I know
    who said I was.  
    
    _Dick

    Re: .40
    
>   Who or what was Asaph?

    Thanks for asking the question, as I have wondered this myself before
    as I have read the Psalms. I did a few minutes research and came
    up with this:
        
    According to the Bible Dictionary in the back of my Bible, is says
    this:
    
         Asaph. A cymbal-playing Levite appointed leader of David's
         choir. Founded a family of singers called the "sons of
         Asaph" or "children of Asaph"; mentioned in the titles
         of various Psalms. See 1 Chr. 6:39; 15:17,19; 16:4-7;
         37; 25:1-9; 2 Chr. 5:12; 20:14; Ezra 2:41; 3:10; Neh.
         7:44; Ps. 50,73-83.
         
    After reading some of the referenced passages, it appears to me that
    Asaph and the "sons of Asaph" were chartered by King David to prophesy
    with a harp, give thanks and to praise the Lord (note especially 1 Chr.
    25:1-9). This is also evidenced in some of the psalms that are
    attributed to Asaph, most notably in those that prophesy of the Second
    Coming, the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple. 
    
    The fact that Jesus made reference to the passage in question (Psalms
    82:6) seems to testify that He considered it to be valid scripture, as
    most Bible-believing Christians also presumably do. 
    
    Rich

Earlier replies in this note have discussed "The God Makers" book and film.
That topic is being continued in note 188.

    
    	What are "Elohim"? What do Mormons make of this term?
    
    	Bubbling over with questions,
    
    
    	Neal Barnette

    The name _Elohim_ is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the
    Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form
    the word is a Hebrew plural noun(1); but it connotes the plurality of
    excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number.  It is
    expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power.  _Elohim_, as
    understood in the restored _Church_of_Jesus_Christ_ is the name-title
    of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn sin in the spirit is
    _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ. 
          
    
    (1) the singular "Eloah," appears only in poetic usage.
                                                              
                                - James E. Talmage in _Jesus_The_Christ_
                                  pg. 38
    
    scott

    From 195.1, by Scott Johnson:

>    The name _Elohim_ is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the
>    Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form
>    the word is a Hebrew plural noun(1); but it connotes the plurality of
>    excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number.  It is
>    expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power.  _Elohim_, as
>    understood in the restored _Church_of_Jesus_Christ_ is the name-title
>    of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn sin in the spirit is
>    _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ. 
          
    From 97.37, by Rich Kotter:    

>    I also believe that Paul believed the Old Testament scriptures and the
>    words of Jesus, as they both referred to this concept of multiple gods.
>    Paul, a trained Jew, would have known of the account in Genesis 1:26
>    that reads, "And God said, Let us make man in *our* image, after *our*
>    likeness..." He would have known that Elohim, the word used in Genesis
>    and translated as 'God', literally means "Gods". He would have known of
>    the Psalms passage "Ye are gods", and as a Christian, he would have
>    known of Jesus reference to that same passage as He bore testimony that
>    He was the Son of God. 

Here we have two conflicting definitions of "Elohim". Scott's is the more
correct, since it is gives us the connotation of the term in it's
original language, rather than a one-for-one transposition from Hebrew to
English. The word Elohim is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament,
in many cases where the word could not possibly be taken as a plural of
number. The "our" in the translation is probably there to preserve
grammatical correctness. 

I don't have my Strong's Concordance in front of me, but I recall reading 
in it that the word "elohim" sometimes was used in reference to magistrates 
who exercised judgemental authority over people. This sheds a bit more
light on Psalm 81 as well. 

It is inconsistent and contradictory for Mormons, in supporting their
plurality of gods doctrine, to claim that the word "Elohim" in Genesis
demonstrates the existence of plural gods, while also wanting us to believe
that it is the "name/title of God the Eternal Father", distinguishing him
from his son, "Jehova". It is particularly interesting when considered in
the light of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord (Jehova) our God
(Elohim) is one Lord (Jehova)."

Ed

    Re: Note 195.2 by CASV02::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>It is particularly interesting when considered in
>the light of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord (Jehova) our God
>(Elohim) is one Lord (Jehova)."

    You raise an interesting point, but you left out my favorite part of
    this passage in Deuteronomy: 
         
         Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love
         the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
         with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this
         day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently
         unto they children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in
         thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
         down, and when thou risest up. (Deut 6:4-7) 
    
    The things we do or do not yet understand about Almighty God are far
    outweighed by the importance of loving Him and serving Him with all our
    heart, might, mind and strength, and of placing our faith in Him. I
    pray we all may do so. 
    
    Merry Christmas!
    Rich

   � You raise an interesting point, but you left out my favorite part of
   � this passage in Deuteronomy...

Rich, I'm glad you like that passage from Deuteronomy, but I don't
think it has any bearing on the subject at hand. It almost seems as 
though you would rather change the subject.

I believe that I have demonstrated that the LDS concept of Elohim is
erroneous, being inconsistent with both the Bible and the Hebrew
language. Elohim is not God the Father's name, any more than "President"
is Ronald Reagan's name (or his father's). This was confirmed by a phone
conversation with a friend of mine who is a Phd candidate at Brandeis
studying the Bible and Ancient Near East, who reads Hebrew as well as he
can read English. He explained that "Elohim" is an appellation of
"Jehova" in Deuteronomy 6:4. It is like saying, "Our President, Ronald
Reagan, is a great President". "President" is an appellation of "Ronald
Reagan". You can not possibly seperate "Ronald Reagan" from "President"
in that statement. He said that the idea of "Elohim" being the name of
God the Father and "Jehova" the name of Jesus is completely without
merit. 

You have implied that this is something that "we do not yet understand 
about Almighty God", yet the passage is so simple and unambiguous that 
anyone should be able to understand it unless they have redefined the
the Hebrew words to mean something else.

Ed

        
    I, too, feel that Talmage's definition of Elohim is correct.  It
    is a title for God the Father.  (Another title is Man, which is
    why Jesus Christ has the title Son of Man.  This is discussed in 
    'Jesus the Christ', beginning on page 142.) There are several scriptures 
    that support the assertion that God the Father (Elohim) and Jehovah 
    (Jesus Christ) are not the same physical being but are one in
    purpose.  I don't believe this is strictly a Mormon belief.  A lot of 
    this has already been discussed.  
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 195.4 by CASV02::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
    Hope you had a Merry Christmas, as we did!
    
>  � You raise an interesting point, but you left out my favorite part of
>  � this passage in Deuteronomy...
>
>Rich, I'm glad you like that passage from Deuteronomy, but I don't
>think it has any bearing on the subject at hand. It almost seems as 
>though you would rather change the subject.
    
    Okay, I admit my statement did change the subject a bit. But when you
    quoted that passage and I pulled out out my King James Version to read
    the context of the statement you quoted, I found the parts of the
    passage you left out to be of such great importance (in my humble
    opinion) that they should not be left out. 
    
    I was completely sincere in my statement that none of us (Mormons
    included) knows everything about Almighty God, but we have received a
    commandment to love Him, a commandment that Christ characterized as the
    greatest commandment, and one that Mormons profess to accept and try to
    diligently keep, as Christ said we should. 
    
    I read with interest that your learned friend agrees with you that
    Elohim is not the name of God the Father, though I do not agree. 
    
    Perhaps of interest on this subject is the following statement by Bruce
    R. McConkie in his book "Mormon Doctrine": 
         
         ELOHIM.
         
         See FATHER IN HEAVEN, GOD, JEHOVAH.
         
         1. EL, as the Hebrew word for God or Divine Being, is used in
         various Hebrew word combinations to identify Deity and to reveal
         particular things about him. Thus El ELyon means the Highest God,
         the Possessor or Creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19); El
         Shaddai signifies God Almighty (Gen. 17:1); El Elohe Yisrael is
         the God of Israel. (Gen 33:20.) 
         
         Elohim is the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah;
         consequently, its leteral meaning is Gods. Accordingly, as the
         Prophet [Joseph Smith] pointed out, such Old Testament passages
         as, "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the
         earth" (Gen 1:1), should more properly be translated, "In the
         beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," and they
         created the heavens and the earth. (Teachings, pp. 370-371.) 
         
         2. Elohim, plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
         name-title of God the Eternal FAther, a usage that connotes his
         supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (The
         Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency
         and the Twelve, cited, Articles of Faith, pp. 365-473; 1 Cor. 8:6) 
    
    McConkie's reference to the passage in 1 Corinthians brings us back to
    one of the earlier passages that we have discussed in this context: 
         
         But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
         things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
         things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6) 
         
    From an LDS point of view, Elohim is *both* a term meaning "Gods", as
    well as a name-title for God the Father. Though there may be other
    gods, we concern ourselves only with but one God, Our Father in Heaven.
    Our task is to love this one God, Our Father in Heaven, and to serve
    Him, as Christ commanded us to do. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                                      

    I have a couple of questions regarding God and his nature.

 QUESTION 1:

    I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
    doctrine and Scripture.   Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
    flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit.  But
    the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit.    So what gives?

 QUESTION 2:
    
    Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive.  This seems to
    contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.
    
    So where have I misunderstood?  Doctrine or Scripture?

i]  As fundatmental Christian you should be confused.  You feel that
    God cannot be conceptionalized where as Mormons believe God is a
    glorified man.  By just reading the Bible one can pick and choose
    somewhat of what God is like.  If you read Genisis carefully you
    could decide that in the beginning God created man in His own image.
    Nothing is mentioned about spirit or physical.  Now, if you enjoy
    reading John or Paul, well, God is diffenently a spirit.  If you read
    in other places in the Bible you will find that God can encompass
    the earth or dwell in your heart.  Who wouldn't be confused?  Why
    does it matter?

    God is most likely progressive and unchanging.  If you only read
    the Bible you'd know God is progressive and unchanging.  In the
    first "testiment" we have a God who says it is okay to sacrifice
    animals and in some cases kill whole villages or cities of people
    and yet this same God is consistently tell "his people" there is only
    one way to "heaven".  In the next section of the Bible, you find
    God telling his people there is only one way to "heaven" and make
    sacrifices of a spiritual nature and turn the other cheek.  God, in 
    this day and age most likely uses an IBM mainframe to keep track of us, well
    you know a cliche is going to happen, but there is still only "one
    way".
    
    Where you misunderstand, is, bringing your thought (or Doctrine) into
    Mormon Doctrine.  You have decided that the Bible is God's word
    and have been told how to believe it and now trying to understand
    the differences between yourself and Mormonism.  It doesn't work.
    Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God and have been
    told how to believe it too.
    
    A higher question is who invented the Gods found in the Bible and
    why are they so different from sect to sect?
    
    
    regards,
    
    hal  

    Re: Note 201.0 by GENRAL::RINESMITH

>   I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
>   doctrine and Scripture.   Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
>   flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit.  But
>   the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit.    So what gives?

    I think Allen has done a pretty good job of addressing this question
    in Note 4.2 of this conference.
    
>   Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive.  This seems to
>   contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.

    "It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth,
    virtue, wisdom, or an of the attributes of godliness. He has already
    gained these things in their fulness. But he is progressing in the
    sense that his creations increas, his dominions expand, his spirit
    offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains."
    (Doctrines of Salvation, as quoted in Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R.
    McConkie, page 239). 
    
    Rich             

    re: .0
    
    Good questions.  For answers on these questions, I would suggest
    the book THE MORMON DOCTRINE OF DIETY, by B. H. Roberts.  It is
    the record of kind of a debate between Roberts and a Catholic preist
    by the name of Van der Donckt.  I say "kind of a debate" because
    it was conducted in a church newspaper over the course of several
    weeks--Roberts putting forth the Mormon doctrine, Van der Donckt
    answering with an attempt to refute that doctrine and a putting
    forth of the standard Catholic/orthodox Christian position, and
    finally Roberts rebutting the priest's argument, concluded by a
    few excerpts from church leaders on the nature of God.  The book
    is available at Deseret Book, or can be ordered from any LDS book-store
    at $9.95.  It is, for the most part, quite easy to read, except for
    a few places where the Catholic gentleman introduces some strings
    of hard-to-follow logic (it seems to me he underestimated Elder
    Roberts' ability as a debater, although Roberts' refutation of the
    priest's logic is equally as involved and requires concentration
    to get through).  Of course, most of the standard Bible verses are
    used by both sides.  The book sets forth quite plainly the church's
    teachings about the nature of God.
    
    I have a copy of the book and would gladly post excerpts from it
    if anyone is interested.  Allen, if there is any interest, where
    should the excerpts go? I know there is a note already started on
    the nature of God, and I had intended to put some excerpts from
    the book in that note when I had some more time.  Suggestions?
    
    Sa yo,
    
    Dave

re .3

Dave,

My suggestions would be as follows.  If the excerpts are few & short, they 
could go either here or in note 97; I've added the keyword GODHEAD to this
note, so there are now two notes that discuss the Godhead.  However, if the
excerpts are many/long, I would suggest that they go in a new note so they
will be in the open & easy to find.  If you create the new note, then please
post replies to this note & 97 pointing to the new note.

Allen

    Re: .4

    Allen,

    I don't anticipate the need for a new note; the excerpts I will post
    for the two questions asked in the basenote may be lengthy, but few.
    If a lot of discussion ensues, or the note begins to fragment, we
    can create a new note.
   
    Re: Note 201.0                

    >QUESTION 1:

       >I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
       >doctrine and Scripture.   Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
       >flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit.  But
       >the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit.    So what gives?
    
    First, I concur with Rich that Allen has done a good job with the
    answer to this question in 4.2.  The excerpts from Elder Roberts'
    book may have some material repetitive of that in 4.2.

    The following is from Roberts' rejoinder to the reply of C. Van Der
    Donckt, who submitted his article as a rebuttal to Roberts' initial
    treatment of the subject of the Mormon doctrine of deity.  All three
    works were printed in the "Improvement Era" in 1901 & 2.  You will
    see that Roberts refers often to statements by the priest--he often
    calls him Mr. V.  If it is hard to follow, I could later excerpt more
    of each of the articles, but I think you will agree that this is long
    enough, and that with patience you can get through it.

********************************************************************************
		A REJOINDER TO REV C. VAN DER DONCKT'S REPLY.

     I have read with great interest and I trust with due care the Rev. C. Van
     Der Donckt's Reply to my discourse on "Mormon Doctrine of Deity."  With
     regard to his Reply in general, I observe three things: first, the Reverend
     gentleman labors with some pains to demonstrate that "Mormon" views of
     Deity with respect to the form and nature of God are at variance with the
     Catholic and even the orthodox Christian views on the subject; second, the
     "Mormon" views of Deity are in conflict with the accepted Christian philo-
     sophy; third, that "Mormon" doctrines stand in sharp contrast to both 
     Catholic and Protestant ideas respecting the unity of God.  All this is
     easily proved; and would have been conceded cheerfully without proofs.
     "Mormons" not only admit the variances but glory in them.  The foregoing,
     however, is not the issue between Mr. Van Der Donckt and myself.  After the
     variances referred to are admitted, these questions remain:  Which is most
     in agreement with what God has revealed concerning his form and nature,
     "Mormon" or orthodox Christian doctrine?  Which is most in harmony with
     sound reason and the scriptures, "Mormon" doctrine, or the commonly accept-
     ed Christian philosophy?  Which in their teaching presents the true doc-
     trine of God's unity, "Mormons" or orthodox Christians?  These are the
     issues; and so far as the Reverend gentleman has maintained the orthodox
     Christian doctrine against the "Mormon" doctrine, I undertake to controvert
     his arguments.

     Following the order of my treatise, the gentleman first deals with the form
     of God.  His first premise is that "God is a spirit," quoting the words of 
     the Saviour (John 4:24) and Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor
     3:17).  He then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes
     the remark of Jesus to his disciples, when he appeared to them after his
     resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have" (Luke
     24:37-39).  Also the words of Jesus to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not
     revealed it (that is, that Jesus is the Christ) unto thee, but my FATHER
     who is in heaven." (Matt 16:17)  The gentleman in all this sees a striking
     contrast between *men*, *flesh and blood*, and the *Father*; which "conveys
     the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit."

     That God is a spirit Mr. V. holds is proved also from his being called
     "invisible in the Bible; and from this premise argues: "All material things
     are visible.  Absolutely invisibly things are immaterial, or bodiless:" and
     therefore, to help the gentleman out a little, not like man in form.

     With reference to the passage--"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
     thee, but my Father who is in heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks
     thereon, I wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and God
     in the passage extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revel-
     ation was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between
     the nature of God and the nature of man.  Here also I may say that the
     Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of *flesh and blood*,
     but a personage of *flesh and bone*, inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus
     was after his resurrection.  Joseph Smith taught concerning the resurrec-
     tion that "all [mankind] will be raised by the power of God, having
     *spirit* in their bodies, and not *blood*."  Again, in speaking of the
     general assembly and church of the firstborn in heaven (Heb 12:23), he
     said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by
     the spirit of God, can." [Ref.s omitted]  So that it must be remembered
     throughout this discussion that the Latter-day Saints do not believe that
     God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bones
     and spirit, united.

     I would remind the reader, also, that while Jesus said, "God is a spirit,"
     and that a spirit "hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have," he nowhere
     says that a spirit is immaterial or not substance.  That is a conclusion
     drawn by the theologians from the false philosophy of the ancient pagans.

     But let us examine these premises and arguments of Mr. Van Der Donckt, more
     in detail.  The inspired apostle says: "*Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb
     12:29).  "Now," to use the words of Mr. V., "although we must believe what-
     ever God reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon
     a thousand; nevertheless, I will add"  that Moses, who solemnly received
     the word from God which he delivered unto Israel, also says, "*The Lord thy
     God is a consuming fire*" (Ex 4:24).  Is Mr. V. ready to believe on these
     solemn assertions of scripture--hence of the Lord--that God is a fire, and
     therefore that fire is God?  Or would he insist upon interpreting these
     passages by others, and by reason?  Would he not want to quote Moses again
     where he says, "Thy God is....*as* a consuming fire" (Ex 9:3), and accept
     this as a reasonable interpretation of the passage stating so definitely
     that "God is a fire"?

     Again, "God is light" (I John 1:5).  Would Mr. V. from that definition of
     God believe and teach that God is light, mere cosmic light?  Or would he
     find an interpretation, or explanation necessary?  And still again, "God is
     love' (I John 4:7,16).  Love is an attribute of mind, of spirit; must one
     conclude then from this definition that God is a mere attribute of mind?
     These reflections will demonstrate that these definitions of God, so far as
     they are such, together with the one with which Mr. V. commences his argu-
     ment, "God is a spirit," need defining.  He endeavors to anticipate the
     "Mormon" answer to this argument by saying:

	I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those texts as
	meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of man-
	kind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have believed for ages, cannot
        be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this
        last century.

     At this point I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions of a
     religious innovator of this last century"--meaning Joseph Smith.  There is
     no need of that.  If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of Christ, I
     might take up the gentleman's argument in this way:  You say that God is a
     spirit and hence bodiless, immaterial?  His answer must be, "Yes."  But
     Jesus says, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have"--hence
     Jesus is not God, because he is a personage of flesh and bone, in the form
     of man--not bodiless or immaterial.  This, of course, is not *my* point.  I
     merely refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of
     caution to my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to
     maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of handling
     the text, "God is a spirit," might lead him into serious difficulty in up-
     holding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if in argument with an
     infidel.

     But now for the "Mormon" exposition of the text.  Is Jesus Christ God?  Was
     he God as he stood there among his disciples in his glorious and, to use
     Mr. V.'s own word, "sacred," resurrected body?  There is but one answer
     that the Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give,
     and that is in the affirmative--"yes, Jesus is God."  But "God is a
     spirit!"  True, he is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body--inside an im-
     mortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God,
     and God is a spirit, he is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day
     Saints teach.

     Now let it be understood that Latter-day Saints are not so foolish as to
     believe that so much phosphate, lime, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen as may
     compose the body of a perfected man, is God.  They recognize the fact that
     the body without the spirit is dead, being alone; but the spirit having
     through natural processes gathered to itself a body, and that body having
     been purified by the power of God--who has promised in holy scripture that
     he will "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glor-
     ious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all
     things unto himself" (Phil 3:20,21)--when this is done, even the body takes
     upon it some of the divine nature.  It indeed becomes "sacred," and some-
     thing more than "sacred"--it becomes incorporated with and forever united
     to, a spirit that is divine, and henceforth becomes and integral part of
     God.  Of which process, of a divine spirit taking on a body of flesh and
     bone, Jesus Christ is the most perfect example.....

     ....Mr. V. holds that it is proved by Holy Writ that "angels as well as God
     are bodiless beings."  After quoting passages of scripture in support of
     this statement, he then adds: "Could plainer words be found to teach that
     angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies?  Now, the Creator
     is certainly more perfect than his creatures, and pure minds are more per-
     fect than minds united to bodies (men)."  In support of which he quotes the
     following: "The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly
     habitation presseth down the mind" (Wisdom 9:15) [This is a book received
     by the Catholic Church on alleged apostolical tradition, but not found in
     the Hebrew Bible nor in Protestant versions of the Bible]; and Paul's say-
     ing, "who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 6:24) [Quoted
     thus by Mr. V.  In both Catholic and Protestant Bibles it stands: "Who
     shall deliver me from the body of this death?"] *Therefore the Creator is a
     pure spirit.*

     I fear Mr. V. in these statements has run into more difficulty.  Let us
     see.  According to his doctrine, "Angels as well as God are bodiless
     beings."  "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies.  The
     Creator is more perfect than his creatures, *and pure minds* [minds separa-
     ted from bodies] *are more perfect than minds united to bodies....Therefore
     the creator is a pure spirit."  But where does this leave Jesus?

     Was and is Jesus God--true Deity?
     Yes.
     But Jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious personage.  His
     mind was and is now united to and dwelling in a body.  Our Catholic friend
     says, "pure minds [i.e. minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than
     minds united to bodies."  He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are
     spirits (i.e. minds) devoid of bodies."  Therefore, it must follow from his
     premises and argument that angels are superior to Jesus since his spirit is
     united to a body, while they are minds *not* united to bodies!  I will not
     press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his premises
     and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless,
     and hence upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bodies,
     for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay upon his faulty
     argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I am sure was not intend-
     ed and would be as revolting to him as it would be to myself.  Mr. V., I am
     sure, would contend as earnestly as I would that Jesus is superior to the
     angels, though it is perfectly clear that he is a spirit united to a body.
     "When he had by himself purged our sins, [Jesus] sat down on the right hand
     of the majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he
     hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they....And again,
     when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let
     all the angels worship him.  And of the angels he saith, who maketh his
     angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. *But unto the Son, he
     saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever*" (Heb 1:3-8).  In this
     passage the superiority of Jesus over the angels is manifested in four
     ways: first, by the direct affirmation of God, that he was made "better"
     than the angels; second, that by inheritance he obtained a more exalted
     name; third, that the angels are commanded to worship him; fourth, God, the
     Father, addressing Jesus, said, "Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever."
     In this passage, the Father directly addresses Jesus by the title "God."
     And as God is exalted above all angels, Jesus must be superior to angels,
     for he is "God," if we may believe the words of the Father--whom to dis-
     believe would be blasphemy.

     Mr. Van Der Donckt admits in his argument, of course, that Jesus is God;
     and also admits the persistence of him in the physical condition in which
     he left the earth with his resurrected body.  For in explaining the scrip-
     ture passage about seeing God "face to face," he remarks:

	The first and chief element of the happiness of heaven will consist in
    	the beatific vision; that is, in seeing God face to face, unveiled, as
      	he really is.  The "face to face," however, is literally true only of 
	our blessed Savior, who ascended into heaven with his sacred body.  Oth-
        erwise, as God is a spirit, he has no body, and, consequently, no face.

     From this it is clear that in the mind of the Reverend gentleman, Jesus not
     only ascended into heaven with his "sacred body," but now dwells there
     spirit and body united; and the blessed, who shall inherit heaven will see
     him there literally face to face.  Other than this "face to face" view of
     Jesus--according to Mr. V.--we shall only see God, since he is a spirit,
     "with the spiritual eye; with the soul's intellectual perception, elevated 
     by a supernatural influx from God!"  This admission with reference to Jesus
     and his existence as an immortal personage of flesh and bone, and our
     literal view of him in heaven "face to face," draws with it some conse-
     quences which my Catholic friend evidently overlooked.  In the creed usual-
     ly named after St. Athanasius, it is said: "*Such as the Father is, such is
     the Son.*"  I take it that this, in the view of those who accept the Athan-
     asian creed, has reference to the "substance of the Father," as well as to
     other things pertaining to him; for, according to that creed, the "sub-
     stance" of the Father and Son is one and undivided.  "We worship one God in
     Trinity, and Trinity in Unity," says the creed; "neither confounding the
     persons nor *dividing the substance.*"  It must be, therefore, according to
     Mr. V.'s creed, that all the "substance" of God there is, is in Jesus
     Christ, as well as the attributes of God.  The terms of the creed forbid us
     believing that part of the "substance" of God was enclosed in the flesh and
     bone body of Jesus, and the remainder existed outside of that body; for
     that would be dividing the "substance" of God, a thing the Athanasian creed
     forbids:  therefore, all the "substance" of God inhabits the body of Jesus
     Christ, and he is wholly God.  In this view of the subject, there is no God
     except the Deity enclosed in the flesh and body of Jesus Christ.  But that
     would place our Catholic friend--after all he has said about God being a
     spirit, and about the superiority of pure minds (i.e. spirits not united to
     bodies) over minds united to bodies--under the necessity of accepting as
     God, the Supreme, the Almighty, a personage that is a spirit and body
     united in one glorious personage, and in form like man--a thing most abhor-
     rent to our friend's principles.

     On the other hand, if it be contended that besides the Son of God, Jesus, a
     personage of flesh and bone and spirit, there exists God, a spirit, then
     there is likely to arise again the conception of the "substance" being div-
     ided, and the existence of two individual Gods instead of one.  The one a
     spirit unembodied, and the other a spirit enclosed in a body of flesh and
     bone--the glorified, exalted Man, Christ.  This danger is also increased by
     the part of the creed now being considered: "Such as the Father is, such is
     the Son;" for it must follow, if this be true that such as the Son is, such
     is the Father also.  And this must hold with reference to God, wholly; to
     his substance, essence, personality, form, as well as to all attributes
     possessed, or else it is not true at all.  And if true, since we know that
     Jesus is an immortal being of flesh and bone and spirit united into one
     glorious personage (and Mr. V. admits that, and also that the blessed in
     heaven shall see him as such a personage, literally "face to face"), then
     God the Father must be the same, a personage of flesh and bone and spirit
     united--a thing most abhorrent to Mr. V.'s principles.
********************************************************************************
         Roberts, B.H., Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. 68 - 77.
********************************************************************************

    That is most of the stuff from the book dealing with Question 1. There is
    a little more that I may post later, but I'll have to dig for it--this was
    mostly all contiguous material.

    Roberts' reply to question 2 will appear shortly.

    Dave 

    RE: .0

    As promised, Roberts' reply to (a question very similar to) QUESTION 2
    follows.  As with his reply to QUESTION 1, there may be some repetition
    of material posted by other noters already in response to this question.
  
    >QUESTION 2:
    
       >Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive.  This seems to
       >contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.
    
       >So where have I misunderstood?  Doctrine or Scripture?

********************************************************************************
    
    Mr. V. next brings as proof against God's being an exalted man, what he
    calls the direct statement of the Bible, that God is not man: "God is not a
    man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should be changed"
    (Numbers 23:19).  "I am God and not man" (Psalm).  These passages simply
    present the contrast between man as he is now, with all his imperfections
    on his head, and God.  The Latter-day Saints do not teach that man in his
    present state and condition is God; on the contrary, they hold that there
    is a very, very wide difference between them, all the difference indicated
    by the Bible: but they do believe that through the eternities that will
    pass over man's head, and with God for guide and teacher, he may become as
    his Father in heaven is, and that such is his destiny.  It follows that
    when man shall attain to that destiny, the contrast now so striking between
    man and God will not exist.  The contrast noted in the scriptures by Mr. V.
    is not between *perfected* men and God, but between very imperfect men--men
    who lie, and are changeable--and God; and since the Latter-day Saints do
    not hold that man while imperfect is God, or like God, or God like him, the
    argument of the gentleman, based on the passages quoted, is of no force.
    It could be said of some grandly developed, noble, high-minded man, such as
    a Gladstone, a Bismark, or a Washington: He is not a child that he should
    halt in reason, or falter in action, or be frightened by phantoms of the
    dark.  But such a contrast does not include the idea that the child may not
    change his status, and finally become all that the great man is with whom
    he is now contrasted.  Clearly the contrast is one of conditions, more than
    of natures, and at its very highest value is the contrast between a per-
    fected nature and one not yet perfected.

    The same answer applies to the Reverend gentleman's contention based on the
    passages, "Thou art always the selfsame;" "I am the Lord and change not;"
    "The Father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of altera-
    tion."  These passages teach what the Reverend gentleman calls the "immut-
    ability of God," which he holds to preclude the idea that God rose from a
    state of imperfection to that of perfection--since he is always the "self-
    same."  Before answering at length, I couple with this Mr. Van Der Donckt's
    final argument on this division of the subject--the scriptural evidences
    and arguments on the form and nature of God--namely, "The Latter-day Saints'
    theory of the Man-God supposes a past and present with God.  The Bible ex-
    cludes that succession of time," says the Reverend gentleman, "and speaks
    of God as the everlasting present; 'I Am Who am,' 'From eternity to eternity
    thou art God.'"  Against this argument, based upon God's reputed unchange-
    ableness, and being always as he now is, from all eternity to eternity, I
    wish to say first, that the *God-nature* is doubtless always the same,
    without reference to those who may attain unto it; and speaking of the God-
    nature, it is always the "Selfsame," from eternity to eternity; but after
    that statement, against the Reverend gentleman's argument bottomed on God's
    immutability and eternity--and, in fact, against all his arguments, from
    first to last, respecting the form and nature of God, I place Jesus of
    Nazareth, the Messiah, the revelation of God to man.  I place him as my
    premises and my argument against all the reverend gentleman has said, or
    can say, on this division of the subject.  I call attention to the fact that
    neither in my discourse which brought forth Mr. Van Der Donckt's Reply nor
    in this Rejoinder, have I turned to those numerous passages of the Bible
    that speak of the face, limbs, or organs of God.  Not that I mistrust the
    force of those passages as evidence, but because I have thought it unneces-
    sary to appeal to them, so long as I had in Jesus, the Messiah, a full
    length and complete representation of God, not only as to the *reality* of
    his being, but as to the *kind* of being God is.  And now I ask, as I did in
    my discourse, *is Jesus God?*  Is he a manifestation of God--a revelation of
    him?  If so, there must be in him an end of controversy; for whatever Jesus
    Christ was and is God must be, or Jesus Christ is no manifestation, no rev-
    elation of God.  Is Jesus Christ in form like man?  Is he possessed of a
    body of flesh and bone which is eternally united to him--and now an integral
    part of him?  Does he possess body, parts, and passions?  There can be but
    one answer to all these questions, and that is, "Yes; he possessed and now
    possesses all these things."  Then God also possesses them; for even accord-
    ing to both Catholic and orthodox Protestant Christian doctrine, Jesus
    Christ was and is God, and the complete manifestation and revelation of God
    the Father.

    Also the specific points of argument based upon God's unchangeability, and
    there being no succession of time with God--that, too, is answered in the
    person and experience of Jesus Christ.  According to Catholic teaching,
    Jesus was a spirit, identical with God the Father in substance, before he
    became man; but at a certain time he became man, was not that a change?  By
    it, he became something he was not before.  His humanity, according to their
    teaching, was *added* to the Son of God when he received his tabernacle of
    flesh and bone; and he was certainly changed from an unembodied state to an
    embodied one; and there was a "before and after"--in reference to this great
    event, in the God Jesus' experience.  Is it thinkable that this change was
    a deterioration?  Was the Son of God's divinity debased to the human, or was
    so much of humanity as he took on raised to the divine nature, and hence-
    forth made an integral part of it?

    The orthodox doctrine of Christianity is--Catholic and Protestant alike--
    that Jesus Christ is God; that he always was and is God, according to both
    orthodox theology and Christian philosophy.  Yet it is said of this Jesus
    that he *"increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man"*
    (Luke 2:52).  Here is certainly a change in condition; here is succession of
    time with God--a before and after; here is being and becoming; for whereas,
    he was a spirit, he became man; and in becoming man, he passed through all
    the phases in life from infancy to manhood.  It is significant also that it
    was not until Jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of
    his disciples, a glorified personage, body and spirit united, that he ex-
    claimed, *"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."*  If "given,"
    there must have been a time when he did not possess all power in heaven and
    earth; and hence, a change from possessing some power to the condition of
    possessing "all power," a fulness of power--"for it pleased the Father that
    in him should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19).

********************************************************************************
     Roberts, B.H., Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. 92 - 96.
********************************************************************************


Dave

    Could someone please tell me where, in the mind of those who believe
    in the doctrine of the trinity (Athanasian creed, etc.), the logic
    of Mr. Roberts in the previous two replies (especially .5) breaks
    down?  Obviously his logic is not in line with the reasoning of
    those who hold to the concept of a triune God as described by the
    various creeds of early Catholicism.  I have wondered about this
    many times and really want to understand the angle on this from
    a non-Member's perspective.  Specifically, do most Christians believe
    that Christ now possesses an indestructable body of flesh and bones?
    
    Gotta go....more questions later.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dave

    I had an interesting conversation with a Born Again the other day
    and in it he stated something I would like to check out with any
    Born Agains reading these notes.  
    
    In our discussion we were comparing the LDS belief of the Godhead
    vs his.  Of course I mentioned that we, like most Christians, believe
    in a 3 member Godhead, The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost, with
    the first 2 have a body of flesh and bones.  He mentioned that his
    belief was that while Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, neither
    the Father nor the Holy Ghost do.  BUT  (And here is the important
    part) that there were 3 personnages in the Godhead, distinct and
    separate, one with body, the other 2 without.
    
    Is this belief what most Christians hold to?  My old recollections
    of Catholic doctrines state that somehow the 3 Gods were all combined
    into 1 personnage.  If Christians believe in this separation of
    personnages in the Godhead, then the only thing differentiating
    LDS from them is that we believe God the FAther has a body as well
    as does Christ.
    
    Would anyone like to comment?  I struggled for years, as a Catholic,
    trying to comprehend the 3 in 1 doctrine, and finally gave up.
    
    Paul
                                

 �   I had an interesting conversation with a Born Again the other day
 �   and in it he stated something I would like to check out with any
 �   Born Agains reading these notes.  
    
  Paul, rather that assume we all know what you mean, could you please 
  define your use of the term, a "Born Again"?

  Thanks,

  Ed

    

    The "Born Again" friend claims that the Word (Bible) is the absolute,
    infallible word of God. And we have no need of further scripture.
     He states that he has the HOly Ghost bear witness of Jesus.  He
    has totally given himself to Christ and through faith (rather than
    works) is saved.  He pays no strict allegiance to any Church, but
    does attend the Assembly of God.
    
    I could go on, but basically Pentecostal, charismatic, born again
    are the usual words to describe this "body of believers".
    
    I hope that clarification will suffice.
    
    Paul
    

    Do you make a distinction between "Born Agains" and, for instance,
    Protestants?
    
    Just want to know,
    
    Ed
    

    yes, my experience with Born Agains is not as positive as with
    Protestants.  Born Agains, in my experience, tend to be more zealous
    than the Protestants (ie Methodists, Prebstyerians, Lutherans, etc.)
    about having the "born again" experience and its attendant signs
    (namely speaking in tongues).
    
    Any how back to my original question. Let me re-phrase it on a more
    general level - Do non-Mormon Christians
    believe that the Godhead is made up of 3 separate beings, one with
    body (Jesus) and 2 without a body (The Father and The Holy Ghost)?
                                            
    Paul
    

    So far, I've had people tell me they were 'Born Again' and just
    figured they know what they were talking about.  I've never been
    in a situation where I told someone that they were a 'Born Again'.
    I always thought that a 'Born Again' was someone who confessed Christ,
    could usually tell you the date when they accepted Christ, and who
    called himself a 'Born Again'.  I always thought, too, that a 
    'Born Again' was another form of Protestant.  Not saying I'm right,
    of course.  Just my impressions.
    
    
    Steve

    The term 'born again' is taken from Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus,
    in which he tells Nicodemus, 'you must be born again'. The reason
    I asked the question in the first place is that Paul used the term,
    "a Born Again", as though it was a label Mormons were familiar with,
    and I wanted to know what it meant. Like Steve, I've never heard
    the term used as a noun. If the term is not in common use among
    Mormons, then let me say that I think that Christians who feel they
    are born-again, as Christ meant it, might chafe a bit if the term 
    were applied to them in the way that Paul used it. My suggestion is 
    to not make a label out of it.
    
    Also, in my experience, being born-again does not necessarily result
    in speaking in tongues, as Paul supposes. 

    Ed
    

    Mormons do believe that we are "born again", in the sense that Jesus
    used it, according to a recent conference talk by President Gordon
    B. Hinckley (as I recall). However, the term is applied differently
    by different denominations.
    
    Rich

    Hmm.  Sounds like a little miscommunication going on here.  I think
    that Paul would respond to clear up what he meant, but he was involved 
    in an accident over the weekend and will probably not be able to
    respond for a while.  It was not life-threatening, but was plenty
    serious.

    For what it's worth, I think I have heard of Born Again as a noun,
    but recall first hearing it from someone referring to himself as
    such.  (I don't recall it having been used as an official term of
    the Church at any time.)  He was a good engineering student, and he 
    and I were good friends in school.  
    
    His group had a rally that was much publicized.  He took part in this
    by putting 'He Is Coming on <date>' on the chalk boards in the
    engineering school.  He did it one word at a time, adding a new word
    each week.  Nobody knew who it was that was doing it and most were pretty 
    critical of whoever it was.  I thought it was pretty gutsy on his part 
    and they did have good turnout.  Had to admire him for that.  He
    wasn't much interested in the Book of Mormon, and I wasn't much
    interested in the rally.  But, we shared a lot of common enthusiasm
    for the Gospel and had good Christian fellowship.  After the
    blackboard thing, I think I was one of the few friends he could
    confide in when he 'confessed'.  ;-)
    
    Steve

	Many christians adhear to what we call the Trinity 3 in 1 lord
	but I belive that most assume that christ can to earth to assume
	the form of a man for a bit of insight to the nature of the son
	jesus prior to this look at John chapter 1 in the New testament
	we also read of such terms as seated at the right hand of god
	and other terms in the Apocolypse of John in order to describe the
	form of christ now it is a complicated subject and one that can
	easily confuse with incidents like christs appearance after
	his death complete with scars in tandem with johns lofty
	spritual visions of heaven so answers which classify the
	entirity or elements of god are bound to fail whatever
	position one takes. I think that the LORD has shown his presence
	in so many differing ways (shrouded in smoke, leaving the temple,
	as a voice with no visual appearance) that we might be a little
	silly to pin his form down to anything we know about.

	I fall into the christian trinity catagory.
	

    Re: Note 97.52 by NZOV01::MUTCH

>                        -< can we behold the LORD ? >-

    I believe that we can behold the Lord, if it is His will that we do so.
    A while back I posted a note in another conference on this subject,
    which includes many Biblical references on this subject. 
    
    Rich
    
================================================================================
Note 780.1                    Can a person see God?                      1 of 15
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                      160 lines  21-OCT-1988 20:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -< Many have seen God >-

    The question "Can a person see God?" is at the heart of knowing the
    nature of God and of knowing the truth of the Bible. 
    
    Some Say No One Can See God
    ---------------------------
    
    As the basis for their conclusion, the following scriptures are often
    referenced:
    
         "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no
         man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) 
           
         "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
         which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
         (John 1:18) 
          
         "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
         sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
         with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that
         hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,
         Shew us the father? (John 14:8-9) 
            
    In spite of the references above, it appears that there is a conflict,
    since there are quite a number of references that show that many have
    seen God. 
    
    Examples from the Bible of Those Who Have Seen God
    --------------------------------------------------
           
    Stephen saw God, as he was being stoned:
    
         "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly
         into heaven, and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on
         the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens
         opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
         God." (Acts 7:55-56) 
           
    Jacob saw God:
    
         "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have
         seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis
         32:30) 
           
    Moses saw God:
    
         "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
         speaketh unto his friend." (Exodus 33:11) 
           
         "With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and
         not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he
         behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my
         servant Moses?" (Numbers 11:8) 
           
    Seventy elders of Israel saw God:
    
         "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy
         of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and
         there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire
         stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
         And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his
         hand: also they saw God..." (Exodus 24:9-11) 
               
    Solomon saw God twice:
    
         "And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was
         turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto
         him twice" (1 Kings 11:9) 
           
    Isaiah saw God:
    
         "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man
         of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of
         unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of
         hosts." (Isaiah 6:5) 
           
    Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord:
    
         "...This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of
         the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and heard a
         voice of one that spake." (Ezekiel 1:28) 
           
    John saw God:
    
         "...I saw... one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a
         garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a
         golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool,
         as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and
         his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a
         furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. ...And
         when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his
         right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first
         and the last." (Rev 1:12-17) 
                                                              
    How Do We resolve this Apparent Conflict?
    -----------------------------------------

         "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no
         man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) 
                                                
    On this occasion, the Lord was very angry because the Israelites had
    disobeyed God by building a golden calf. Because the Lord was angry,
    any man who should see Him *at that time* WOULD perish. The fact that
    Moses and the other Israelites had seen him and others saw him,
    indicates that this was not a permanent condition. 
    
         "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
         which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
         (John 1:18) 
    
    Given the context of the whole Bible, this statement of John's seems
    not to correlate with his other statements on this subject. This is
    shown by the following verse, also written by John, which indicates
    that he which is of God can see God, and by the verse above from
    Revelations, where John testifies that he saw God in His Glory: 
    
         "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of
         God, he hath seen the Father" (John 6:46) 
                                                        
    What of this passage?
          
         "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
         sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
         with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that
         hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,
         Shew us the father? (John 14:8-9) 
                         
    Jesus taught that he is in the express image of the Father. To see one
    is to know what the other looks like. 
    
    What Does It Take to See God?
    -----------------------------       

    So if it is possible to see God, what does it take for this to happen? 
                                                                          
    A person must be pure of heart:
    
         "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
         (Matt 5:8) 
           
    The Son must reveal him:
    
         "...no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
         any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the
         Son will reveal him." (Matt 11:28) 
           
    A person must follow peace and holiness:
    
         "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no
         man shall see the Lord:" (Heb 12:14) 
           
    Summary
    -------
    
    Can a person see God? It is clear that many have. Some have seen both
    the Father and the Son. The Savior promised that the pure in heart
    would see God. For a person to see God, he must be prepared and protected
    in a special way by God, so as to survive the experience. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich                                                     

     

    In addition to the scriptural references from the Holy Bible that
    indicate clearly that many have been blessed to see God, there are
    references in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that
    also teach that a person can see God. 

    Isaiah, Nephi and Jacob saw Christ
    ----------------------------------
    
         And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul
         delighteth in his words, For I will liken his words unto my
         people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he
         verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him. 
         
         And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him;
         wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children to prove
         unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of
         three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God
         sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words. (2 Nephi
         11:2-3) 
    
    Lamoni Sees Christ 
    ------------------
    
         For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and
         he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem
         all mankind who believe on this name. (Alma 19:13) 
         
    The Brother of Jared Saw Christ
    -------------------------------
                                                           
         And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself
         unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are
         redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my
         presence; therefore I show myself unto you. Behold, I am he who
         was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.
         Behold, I am Jesus Christ. 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. (Selected passages from
         Ether 3:13-16) 
    
    Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw God
    --------------------------------------
    
         And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him,
         this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he
         lives! 
         
         For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the
         voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father --
         That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were
         created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and
         daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24) 
    
    Priesthood necessary to see God
    -------------------------------
         
         And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the
         priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the
         flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the
         Father, and live. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of
         Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his
         people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened
         their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the
         Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore
         that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness,
         which rest is the fullness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses
         out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; And the lesser
         priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the
         ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel; (D&C 84:21-26) 
    
    Sanctify yourselves to see God
    -------------------------------
    
         And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be
         filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that
         body which is filled light comprehendeth all things. Therefore,
         sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the
         days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face
         unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and
         according to his own will. (D&C 88:67-68) 
         
         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; (D&C 93:1) 
         
         Yea, and my presence shall be there [in the temple], for I will
         come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it
         shall see God. (D&C 97:16) 
    
    Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery saw the Lord
    --------------------------------------------
    
         The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our
         understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the
         breastwork of the pulpit [of the temple], before us; and under his
         feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes
         were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the
         pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun;
         and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters,
         even the voice of Jehovah, saying: 
         
         I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was
         slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are
         forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your
         heads and rejoice. 
         
         Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all
         my people rejoice, who have, with their might built this house to
         my name. For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall
         be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this
         house. 
         
         Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine
         own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not
         pollute this holy house. (D&C 110:1-8) 

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    In the Pearl of Great Price, there is more information about Moses
    seeing God. In the interest of time, I have only included part of
    this account.
    
    Moses saw God
    -------------
    
         And he [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and
         the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his
         presence. 
         
         And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God
         Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of
         days or end of years; and is not this endless? 
         
         And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee
         the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are
         without end, and also my words, for they never cease. 
         
         Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my
         glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain
         in the flesh on the earth. 
         
         And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the
         similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and
         shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there
         is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I
         know them all. 

         And now, behold, this one thing I show unto the, Moses, my son,
         for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. And it
         came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he
         was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and
         all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the
         same he greatly marveled and wondered. 
         
         And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was
         not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was
         left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. 
         
         And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before
         Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he
         said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing,
         which thing I never had supposed. 
         
         But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my
         spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I
         should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was
         upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. 
         
    The account also relates how Satan appeared to Moses and tempted Moses
    to worship him. 
         
         And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as
         he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless,
         calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying:
         Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which
         is the God of glory. 
         
         And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses
         received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the
         Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan. 
         
         And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with
         weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed
         hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not. 
         
         And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness
         it is not had among the children of men. 
         
         And it came to pass that when Satan had departed from the presence
         of Moses, that Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled
         with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the
         Son; 
         
         And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for
         it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou,
         Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and though shalt be
         made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as
         if thou wert God. 
         
         And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou
         shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 
         
         And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast
         his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was
         not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the
         spirit of God. 
         
         And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a
         soul which he beheld not; 
         
         And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
         stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.
         And the Lord God said unto Moses: for mine own purpose have I made
         these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 
         
         And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
         Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 
         
         And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
         for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
         Only Begotten. 
         
         And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so
         shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my
         words. 
         
         For behold, this is my work and my glory -- to bring to pass the
         immortality and eternal life of man. 
         
         (Selected passages from Moses 1)

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    To Ed Preston:
    
    Ed,
    
    "Born Again", as a noun, has been appearing in articles, news magazines
    and other media for about a year or two (at least the media I read).
     True, the correct name is Born Again Christian (aka fundamentalist
    Christian).  So ,for what it is worth, when I use the term Born
    Again with these type Christians, they usually know exactly what
    I mean.  By the way, they are the ones who told me the way to recognize
    a BA is by their telling you that they have had a speaking in tongues
    experience.
    
    I agree with you that the label Born Again or Fundamentalist is
    starting to take on pejorative connotations.   Remember the Jesus
    Freaks of the 1970's,
    I have a feeling that the media is trying to paint the BA and
    Fundmentalists as the same types.
    
    Anyhow, I have not yet received an answer from anyone (preferably
    non-Mormon) about my original question, which was:
    
    In the heavens is the Godhead made up of 3 distinct and separate
    persons, one with body (Jesus) and the other 2 (Father and Holy
    Ghost) spirits only?
    
    Paul
          

    In addition to the accounts that I have already posted, there are
    two others that bear mentioning:
    
    Abraham saw God
    ---------------
    
         Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one
         man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which
         his hands had made;
         
         And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his had was stretched
         out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand
         upon mine eyes, and I saw those thins which his hands had made,
         which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and
         I could not see the end thereof. (Abraham 3:11-12)
    
    Joseph Smith's First Vision
    ---------------------------

    (Borrowed from note 4.14)
    
         Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester,
         there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the
         subject of religion.  It commenced with the Methodists, but soon
         became general among all the sects in that region of country.
         Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and
         great multitudes united themselves to the different religious
         parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the
         people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and others, "Lo there!" Some were
         contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and
         some for the Baptist. 

         For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these
         different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and
         the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were
         active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of
         religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they
         were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet
         when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to
         another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the
         priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a
         scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued--priest contending
         against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their
         good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely
         lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.  (Joseph
         Smith--History 1:5-6) 

    Joseph was interested in religion and wanted to join a church. However,
    because of the differing claims and contention, he was confused. 

         In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often
         said to myself:  What is to be done?  Who of all these parties are
         right; or, are they all wrong together?  If any one of them be
         right, which is it and how shall I know it? (Joseph Smith--History
         1:10) 

    Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance. 

         While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the
         contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading
         the epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads:
         'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all
         men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him'. 

         Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the
         heart of man than this did at the time to mine.  It seemed to
         enter with great force into every feeling of my heart.  I
         reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed
         wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless
         I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for
         the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the
         same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all
         confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. 

         At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in
         darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that
         is, ask of God.  I at length came to the determination to "ask of
         God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked
         wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might
         venture. 

         So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I
         retired to the woods to make the attempt.  It was on the morning
         of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred
         and twenty.  It was the first time in my life that I had made such
         an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made
         the attempt to pray vocally. 

         After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed
         to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I
         kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God.
         I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some
         power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing
         influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak.
         Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time
         as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. 

         But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of
         the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very
         moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to
         destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some
         actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power
         as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of
         great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above
         the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell
         upon me. 

         It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy
         which held me bound.  When the light rested upon me I saw two
         Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description,
         standing above me in the air.  One of them spake unto me, calling
         me by name and said, pointing to the other--'This is My Beloved
         Son.  Hear Him!' (Joseph Smith--History 1:11-17) 

    I testify that God the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared
    to Joseph Smith! 

         My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all
         the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner,
         therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to
         speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the
         light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had
         never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I
         should join. 

         I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
         wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their
         creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
         were all corrupt; that:  "they draw near to me with their lips,
         but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
         commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the
         power thereof." 

         He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other
         things did he say unto me, which I can not write at this time....
         (Joseph Smith--History 1:18-20) 

          Knowledge Restored Through Joseph's Vision
          ------------------------------------------

          Through this vision in the spring of 1820, we learn the
          following.

          1.  God and Jesus Christ both have glorified and perfect bodies
              of flesh and bone.  They are distinct, separate personages.

          2.  None of the churches at that time were accepted by Christ and
              had the authority of God.

          3.  The creeds taught by the churches were false.  Examples of
              such creeds are the Nicene and Athanasian creeds which teach
              the "mystery" of the trinity.  It is significant that the
              first knowledge restored in the restitution of all things was
              a true knowledge of God, for Jesus said it was life eternal
              to know God (John 17:3).



          The Churches Are All Wrong
          --------------------------

          Jesus told Joseph that he must join none of the existing churches
          for they were all wrong.  Jesus DID NOT mean that the people in
          those churches had no faith in Christ.  Jesus DID NOT mean that
          the people did not have their prayers answered.  Jesus DID NOT
          mean that the people were bad or evil.

          Jesus DID mean that none of the churches had the authority of
          God.  Jesus DID mean that the churches were teaching false creeds
          and doctrines, teachings which had been introduced after the
          death of the Apostles by corrupt and misguided Bishops and other
          officials.  Jesus DID mean that there was much more to the Gospel
          of Jesus Christ than that found in the available churches.

In his discussion with Rich in Note 212, Charlie made some interesting
comments about Jesus.  I began to discuss them with Charlie but decided that
I should continue that discussion in this note to avoid fragmenting 212.

Allen

================================================================================
Note 212.16                      The Priesthood                         16 of 17
CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"                 47 lines  21-FEB-1989 17:36
                             -< Jesus is Jehovah >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Charlie,

    [part unrelated to the Godhead removed]

>     By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham. 

We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus  was the Jehovah of the
Old Testament.  I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
this belief.  When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.


>     It is stated in Hebrews
>     that Melchisedec had neither [human] father or mother or beginning of days
>     [this assumes that you can accept this as it relates to the person as
>     opposed to the order :)]. Rather than being simply 'in the flesh', I 
>     believe that Jesus appeared to Abram in much the same form as he appeared 
>     to the men on the road to Emmaus having reentered the glorified state
>     which He had before being made flesh. [John 17:5]

We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones.  What I think I hear
you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
bones again.  I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.

Allen

================================================================================
Note 212.17                      The Priesthood                         17 of 17
WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON "A white stone with my new name."  37 lines  22-FEB-1989 14:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Note 212.16 by CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"                 

Hi Allen,

>>     By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham. 

>We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus  was the Jehovah of the
>Old Testament.  I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
>this belief.  When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
>believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
>the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.

    Yes, I agree.

>We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
>Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones.  What I think I hear
>you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
>bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
>flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
>bones again.  I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
>said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
>on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.

   All I can say for sure is, that we know from Scripture that Jesus had
   a glorified body of flesh and bone after having a mortal body. It's
   difficult to conclude exactly what physical form he assumed prior to 
   his earthly existance as a mortal. I did assume that it might have
   resembled his post-mortal form because of John 17:5. Here Jesus recounts 
   the fact that He was a glorified being with God the Father prior to His 
   mortal existance.

   Philippians 2:6-8 also tells us that Jesus 'emptied Himself' and 'took on
   the form of a servant' indicating that He willfully gave up His glorified
   form to become a mortal being.

   God bless,
   Charlie   

I hope, Charlie, that you don't mind me switching this discussion to this
note.  We're getting into some beautiful concepts, and I thought I would
like to enjoy them with you.

>   All I can say for sure is, that we know from Scripture that Jesus had
>   a glorified body of flesh and bone after having a mortal body. It's
>   difficult to conclude exactly what physical form he assumed prior to 
>   his earthly existance as a mortal. I did assume that it might have
>   resembled his post-mortal form because of John 17:5. Here Jesus recounts 
>   the fact that He was a glorified being with God the Father prior to His 
>   mortal existance.

We believe that John 17:5 refers to Jesus' being a member of the Godhead prior
to the creation of the earth, a time referred to in Mormon doctrine as the
"pre-existance".  As I explained in notes 4.1 and 4.2, we believe he was a
personage of spirit in the pre-existance.  So, from our viewpoint, the glory
referred to in John 17:5 is his glory as a member of the Godhead rather than
glory from having a perfect body of flesh and bones.  After his resurrection,
of course, he then did have a perfect body of flesh and bones.  While a member
of the Godhead in this pre-existance, he was chosen (foreordained) to be the
Messiah, and he created the earth.

Three notes that give background information about Jesus' glory with the
Father before the earth was formed are

    4.50  Where did we come from
    4.51  Jesus is the Firstborn
    4.52  War in Heaven


>   Philippians 2:6-8 also tells us that Jesus 'emptied Himself' and 'took on
>   the form of a servant' indicating that He willfully gave up His glorified
>   form to become a mortal being.

That is one of the beautiful concepts of Christianity--Jesus, as a member of
the Godhead, willingly becoming mortal and suffering for the sins of everyone
that he might complete his atonement.  We believe that those verses in
Philippians refer to his giving up his "position" and glory in the Godhead to
become mortal rather than giving up a perfect body of flesh and bonds for a
mortal body.  The Book of Mormon speaks of this as the condescension of God.

    And it came to pass that he [the Spirit of the Lord who came to Nephi in
    vision] said unto me:  Look!  And I looked as if to look upon him, and I
    saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.  And it came to
    pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also
    other cities.  And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of
    Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

    And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down
    and stood before me; and he said unto me:  Nephi, what beholdest thou?
    And I said unto him:  A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other
    virgins.

    And he said unto me:  Knowest thou the condescension of God?  And I said
    unto him:  I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not
    know the meaning of all things.  And he said unto me:  Behold, the
    virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner
    of the flesh.

    And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the
    Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space
    of a time the angel spake unto me, saying:  Look!

    And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
    And the angel said unto me; Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of
    the Eternal Father!...  (1 Nephi 11:12-21)

RE: Note 97.60 by CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"                 

    Hi Allen,

>I hope, Charlie, that you don't mind me switching this discussion to this
>note.  We're getting into some beautiful concepts, and I thought I would
>like to enjoy them with you.

    I don't mind at all Allen.

>We believe that John 17:5 refers to Jesus' being a member of the Godhead prior
>to the creation of the earth, a time referred to in Mormon doctrine as the
>"pre-existance".  As I explained in notes 4.1 and 4.2, we believe he was a
>personage of spirit in the pre-existance.  So, from our viewpoint, the glory
>referred to in John 17:5 is his glory as a member of the Godhead rather than
>glory from having a perfect body of flesh and bones.  After his resurrection,
>of course, he then did have a perfect body of flesh and bones.  While a member
>of the Godhead in this pre-existance, he was chosen (foreordained) to be the
>Messiah, and he created the earth.

    I will have to review 4.1 and 4.2 but I find little, unorthodox, in the
    above, from 'mainstream' Christian belief. 

  RE: Philippians 2:6-8

>That is one of the beautiful concepts of Christianity--Jesus, as a member of
>the Godhead, willingly becoming mortal and suffering for the sins of everyone
>that he might complete his atonement.  We believe that those verses in
>Philippians refer to his giving up his "position" and glory in the Godhead to
>become mortal rather than giving up a perfect body of flesh and bonds for a
>mortal body.

   I see that your stressing Jesus' divine 'position' as opposed to His
   'form' in the above and as I previously mentioned, I really have no
   idea just what His form was, only that, as Jehovah [LORD], it seems
   that He did appear to Abram in the form of a 'man' such as in Genesis
   17. Now whether this was a glorified/perfect body of flesh and bone
   I cannot be certain, but it must have resembled a man's form somehow
   or Abram wouldn't have recognized Him as such, wouldn't you agree?

   Charlie

Hi Charlie,

>    I will have to review 4.1 and 4.2 but I find little, unorthodox, in the
>    above, from 'mainstream' Christian belief. 

The reason I moved the discussion to this note was not because we might
differ in our beliefs, but so we as fellow Christians could enjoy the
scriptures together for a few moments, for we have a common faith in Christ.



>   I see that your stressing Jesus' divine 'position' as opposed to His
>   'form' in the above and as I previously mentioned, I really have no
>   idea just what His form was, only that, as Jehovah [LORD], it seems
>   that He did appear to Abram in the form of a 'man' such as in Genesis
>   17. Now whether this was a glorified/perfect body of flesh and bone
>   I cannot be certain, but it must have resembled a man's form somehow
>   or Abram wouldn't have recognized Him as such, wouldn't you agree?


We believe that Jesus, prior to being born of Mary, was a personage of
spirit, and it was in that form that he was Jehovah.  I emphasis the word
'personage', for we do not believe that spirits are immaterial.  In the
Book of Mormon, Jesus as Jehovah appeared to a man known as the brother
of Jared.  The brother of Jared was surprised to see that the Lord had
flesh and blood, and Jehovah corrected him and explained that he was seeing
the body of his spirit.  To the brother of Jared, the spirit body looked
like a mortal body, i.e. it had form and shape as our bodies do.  We believe
it was with his spirit body that he appeared to Abram.

From our viewpoint, then, we would say that Jesus had a spirit body prior to
being born of Mary and was a member of the Godhead and was the Jehovah
of the Old Testament.  Then he had a mortal body.  Then he had a resurrected
body of glorified flesh and bones, as he explained to the apostles.  Since
he will never die again, he will  always have that glorified resurrected
body.

Joseph Smith said that spirits were matter, but of a "more refined" or
more "pure" type than our mortal matter.  I guess a mathematician would
say that spirit matter is in a different dimension than mortal matter, or
something like that.

Allen

My wife and I were interviewed last night by a member of our Stake Presidency
for our Temple recommends.  After the interviews were over, we discussed
an interesting question: Does God have faith?  My wife and the Counselor
said yes and I said no.

What do you think?

Hmmm.  I think that God has certain knowledge of things that we can only have
faith in.  But, I think that He has faith concerning things that have not yet
occurred.  Though He can do many things, I don't figure He does the time travel
bit.  But, when I refer to God's faith, I think I refer to something that is
a perfect faith, based on the hopes and knowledge He has about His children
and the eternities.  Perhaps His faith would to us seem to be knowledge, since
the only difference between faith and knowledge becomes the issue of, for
example, whether an event has yet transpired.  Does that cloud things up
enough? ;)

Steve

    
    I believe that God could have faith as pertaining to his capacity to 
    organise future worlds. It would have to be in the realm that Steve brought
    up. The only problem here is within our own definition of Faith as given 
    by Alma. "..Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if
    ye have faith ye hope for things which are true." Alma 32:21 To say
    that God has faith implies that God does not have a perfect knowledge
    of things. However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
    in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
    realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
    of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
    than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship 
    if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
    faith.
    
    Kevin
    and perhaps there is a relationship
    

    Interesting question!
    
    I do not believe that God can increase in knowledge, for He is
    omniscient (all knowing). He knows all things, and there is not
    anything that He does not know. Since faith is "the substance of things
    hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1), then I would
    say that God does not have faith, for it has been superceded by pure
    and perfect knowledge of all things. 

    Also, Alma speaks about how, when one obtains a perfect knowledge
    of things, he no longer has faith in it, but a pure knowledge of
    it.
        
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
    

    Hi!
    
    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
    in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
    Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
    then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
    to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
    doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)
    
    Kevin

    Have you asked Him?
    
    aq
    

    In "Lectures on Faith", the statement is made that 'Faith is the
    principle on which all actions are based'.  Specifically, it states
    that it was by faith that the earth was formed.  Since God acts, he
    must have faith.
    
    Jim

    
    Good reference, Jim!
    
    Kevin

I must say, Allen, this is a very thought-provoking question.  I agree with
you and Rich, in that I don't believe that God has faith.  He doesn't need
faith - he is omniscient and omnipotent.

Outlined below are some questions I have as a result of reading the replies
posted so far to this note.  Please realize that I am just trying to get
a better understanding of where everyone is coming from.

>Re: .2 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV

>    However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
>    in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
>    realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
>    of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
>    than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship 
>    if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
>    faith.

Kevin:

Subscribe to the idea?  Where did this idea that *God can increase in knowledge*
originate?  Is it in the Bible, in LDS scriptures, i.e. the Triple Combination,
or in some historical Church teachings?

My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
direct me to the appropriate note(s).  Is the "existence of more than one
God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept?  Upon reading
the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
one God.

    
>Re:  .4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV 
    
>    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
>    in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
>    Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
>    then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
>    to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
>    doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)

Kevin again:

Okay, please help me understand this.  I have *always* had trouble
understanding this stuff . . .

Brigham Young was the prophet.  Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
seventy, i.e. a General Authority.  These two MEN are discussing this issue
of whether or not God has faith.  Brigham says yes; Orson says no.  Brigham
won?  How did he win?  Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
or did he reveal it to both men or what?

Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
directed.  Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
to the people would stand the test of time.

So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"?  Orson wasn't
a prophet.  Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
a prophet to believe in the words of another man?

I have lots of questions around this - which should probably be addressed in 
another topic.  On that note, I'll stop this line of questioning.


>Re: . 6 by CURIE::WAGNER

>    In "Lectures on Faith", the statement is made that 'Faith is the
>    principle on which all actions are based'.  Specifically, it states
>    that it was by faith that the earth was formed.  Since God acts, he
>    must have faith.
    
Jim:

Isn't the book "Lectures on Faith" a written format of lectures that were
taught at the School of the Prophets in Kirkland, Ohio, back in the early
history of the Church?  I'm trying to remember if I've got the right source
in mind.

The statement "it was by faith that the earth was formed" bothers me.  By
what faith? I believe that God knew *exactly* what he was doing when he
created the earth.  Does your reference elaborate more on this topic? 

**************

Still as curious as ever,

Tamara

Hi Tamara,

>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>direct me to the appropriate note(s).  Is the "existence of more than one
>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept?  Upon reading
>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>one God.

You've brought up a a very important question, one that we all need to
reflect upon.  I just moved a modified version of 4.67 into note 4.  I
discuss two Old Testament scriptures that opponents of the LDS Church
quote against us.  If you do a DIR/KEY=GODHEAD you will get a list of the
notes that discuss God.  Most of them are specific (as this note is), so
you might want to start a new note about the question is there more one
God and express your concerns about the LDS teaching of the plurality of
Gods.  I have a few observations to make, but I'll save them for the new
note.

Allen

>>    However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
>>    in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
>>    realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
>>    of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
>>    than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship 
>>    if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
>>    faith.

>Kevin:

>Subscribe to the idea?  Where did this idea that *God can increase in knowledge*
>originate?  Is it in the Bible, in LDS scriptures, i.e. the Triple Combination,
>or in some historical Church teachings?

Hi Tamara!

I don't have my reference handy, but I've seen some of Brigham Young's wri-
tings/discourses that have brought this up. I'll post them as soon as I can.

>>Re:  .4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV 
    
>>    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
>>   in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
>>   Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
>>   then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
>>   to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
>>   doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)

>Kevin again:

>Okay, please help me understand this.  I have *always* had trouble
>understanding this stuff . . .

>Brigham Young was the prophet.  Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
>seventy, i.e. a General Authority.  These two MEN are discussing this issue
>of whether or not God has faith.  Brigham says yes; Orson says no.  Brigham
>won?  How did he win?  Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
>or did he reveal it to both men or what?
    
    Forgive me for my choice of words. Brigham felt it necessary during the
    late 1850's-60's to call down Orson Pratt for some of his "theories" he
    expounded in his many pamphlets. Brigham felt that Orson was philosophising
    in his writings and using the ideas of men, rather than inspiration. I say
    that Brigham "won" in that, even though Orson was scolded and some of his 
    writings were purged, eventually LDS leaders have come over to Orson's 
    view in some areas. The Adam-God doctrine was another point of contention 
    at the same time. Orson couldn't accept it and he was blunt to Brigham 
    about it. I believe Orson wasn't alone, for at because in time the before 
    mentioned items have been changed. As I see it, given time, many older 
    beliefs that may not stand up to scrutiny are eventually discarded, with 
    little fanfare. The early church was full of good men who may have 
    speculated alot. We must understand this and not be disturbed by apparent 
    conflicts in doctrine that arise. 

>Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
>of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
>And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
>directed.  Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
>to the people would stand the test of time.

    *My* own belief here is that much that Brigham revealed is truth. Now,
    it is up to all of us to accept or reject his teachings, just as our modern
    prophets teachings. Some of what we teach today may not wash in say, the 
    next 150 years. It doesn't mean that the doctrine of today is not true. 
    It's just the gospel is an evolving thing, some doctrines, teachings just 
    don't stand up to the test of time. A GA recently was excommunicated, 
    in part because he claimed one prevailing doctrine had been changed. 
    It'll be interesting to see if in the next 50 years or so, if the doctrine 
    indeed has changed.

>So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"?  Orson wasn't
>a prophet.  Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
>a prophet to believe in the words of another man?

    Just as I brought up before. We need to sort out what is speculation from
    what is doctrine, and our early leaders, sometimes speculated. You see
    today that if there is speculation, it is VERY low keyed, but I believe
    it's still there. Many leaders speculated on the reason for Blacks not 
    receiving the Priesthood up to the point where the revelation was received,
    allowing it. B. Young, on ther other hand taught that the day we allowed 
    them to  receive the priesthood we would be damning ourselves. You need to
    look at the time period when he was speaking and society then. Did he
    assert personal opinions? I can't answer that question. It's up to us as
    individuals to come up with a prayerful answer to that. As it is, the
    new revelation has taken care of the speculation. ALL can share in the 
    blessings today. 

    Kevin
                         

    It's interesting how - depending upon the circumstances - a prophet's
    or apostle's words (no matter what the potential impact) can be
    categorized into "opinion" or "doctrine" depending upon the need
    of the moment. At least that's the way it's beginning to sound...
    
    Also, if God imparts faith, doesn't it stand to reason that He must
    also have it? Besides, who says that the presence of faith proves
    a shortage of knowledge? I think that faith is beyond our ability
    to neatly categorize, and that although intellectually diverting,
    a discussion like this is of no benefit.
    
    Ed
    
    

Re: .8
    
>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>direct me to the appropriate note(s).  Is the "existence of more than one
>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept?  Upon reading
>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>one God.
    
    Hi,
    
    I believe it's a Biblical concept, but has been muddied through the
    translations into English. Joseph Smith talked about this at length in
    the Ken Follett Discourse (History of the Church, Vol 1, don't
    remember the section off the top of my head). He takes particular
    exception to the way the first word of the Genesis is translated. He
    said something to the effect of the word really means "the head of the
    Gods", but the translator didn't think that God only had a head, so he
    changed the context from "the Head of the Gods" to "God". Very
    interesting reading.
    
    Bryan

    
    
    Hi Bryan!
    
    Long time since I've heard from you! A fellow King Follett reader.. eh?
    Yes, Joseph spoke in his discourse of the "head" God of the Gods.
    I have the book "Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook and Ehat, that compare
    the different accounts of this discourse. In it Joseph speaks of
    of Eloheim (sp), or Gods He Also talks of the concept
    of there not ever being a son without a father, which leads to the
    mortality of God, that he was once a man. Given we all have that spark
    of divinity in ourselves, ie, God's spirit children, we shouldn't be
    surprised to hear that God was once a mortal man, resurrected, and
    exalted to Godhood, and that this is just one of His glorious creations.
    
    Kevin

When talking of faith we have to define it.  That doesn't mean that there
are multitudes of conflicting definitions, rather there are different
aspects of the same thing, each emphasizing a different point.

For example, JS talked about faith as a power for action (my words here) in
one of his talks.

Hebrews and Alma talk about it as a belief or hope for things true but unseen.

These are just different aspects of "faith".  We most likely don't understand
the complete picture in regards to "faith" and therefore we have the various 
ideas or aspects presented as the whole.

I'd say that God has a more perfect� "faith" than we do or understand.  His
faith is more than belief in things unseen.  He is all-knowing so therefore
his faith is more perfect than alma's and hebrew's definition.

Maybe we could add to the definition of faith by saying that one aspect is
"spiritual knowledge".  In other words, that which we have from the Spirit,
not through our material eyes and brains.

It all depends what aspect you look at if he has it or not.  The question
itself is sort of not so important unless it leads us to a greater understanding
ourselves of what faith is.


Chad

� or perhaps: most perfect



regards: prophets.  This has probably been discussed before.  The Gospel is
unchanging and eternal (the policies).  The procedures do change.  Allen
had a note about this I believe.

Prophets are also humans and can err.  Also, all speculate, and being humans
these speculations must not always be correct.  When speaking as a prophet,
then the pronouncments *are* revelations from God.  When not speaking as
a prophet, they *are not* from God (as revelations), though they may very well
be true.  In the early days of the church, the Lord revealed the Gospel
a step at a time (he still does but he has revealed/restored a lot since the
early days so we grow up with a more complete Gospel).  The early brethren
often got really excited and wrapped up in Gospel thinking and speculated
*a lot* about things the Lord had/has not revealed.  Eventually the Lord 
reveals/revealed the truth of the matter so to speak, showing that some 
speculations weren't true.  That does not make these people less apostles
and prophets.  If the Lord wanted robots, he'd call robots as prophets.  Let's
say I'm the prophet and I'm interested in a point of the Gospel where the Lord
hadn't yet said anything.  Should the Lord force me not to think about that
point?  Of course not, so my active thinking produces a theory about something
where I haven't received better knowledge.  If I tell people about this,
write it down, or the similar, that doesn't make it a revelation nor make
it true.  It could be not true or off a bit.  Then the Lord reveals the truth
of the matter when he feels it important.  True prophets then preach the
revelation no matter what their prior theory was.

    RE: .8
    
    Yes, the Lectures on Faith were actually prepared texts used at the
    School of the Prophets.  They were typically studied before the meeting
    of the School.  I'm not up enough on my history to give you much detail
    of how the School of the Prophets operated when they met.
    
    I just scanned through the past few replies, as I'm kind of pressed for
    time, but having made an entry I feel a responsibility to respond to
    questions about it.
    
    Regarding whether God has faith, I like some of the comments I came
    upon in .15.  I suppose the operative words to be applied in examining
    faith are "a sure knowledge".  We know that faith is not to have a sure
    knowledge.
    
    For me, a working example is probably the best way to understand faith.
    
    If I want to have beans with my dinner tonight, I will go to my
    cupboard and take out a can labeled beans and proceed to open it.  If
    someone were to ask me what I was doing, I would tell them that I'm
    getting ready to eat beans.  I make this statement because I have faith
    that the contents of the can are in fact what they are labeled to be. 
    In fact, I go through the action of opening the can, because of my
    faith that doing so will allow me to have beans.  It is not until I
    remove the lid and look inside (after I have acted) that I have a sure
    knowledge of the contents of the can.  If I look into the can and find
    peas, I have a sure knowledge that I have put my faith in a false
    principle.  If I find beans, then I have a sure knowledge of the
    presence of beans AND that the principle upon which I acted is true.
    
    If we apply my poor analogy to God's faith and omniscience - God
    performed an act to create the earth.  The reason he performed that act
    is because he knew that doing so would result in earth being created. 
    He is omniscient in that he knows perfectly ALL correct and true
    principles.  Because of this, if one of us were to query him during the
    creation process, he would have stated that he was creating an earth. 
    However, he must have faith in his knowledge of these correct
    principles as a precondition to his using them to create the earth.
    
    Writing this example, I feel it describes pretty well my understanding
    of faith and how it is used by us and by God as a precondition for all
    of our actions.  I hope that it comes across clearly.  I'll be happy to
    respond or expand if I haven't effectively communicated some point.
    
    Faithfully,
    
    Jim

    
    > Re:  .10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
                                      
    Kevin:
    
    I will be very interested in the references about God
    increasing in knowledge.  I have a few concerns/issues
    with this concept - but instead of stating my concerns
    here, I will start a new note.  
    

> Re: .16 by CURIE::WAGNER 
    
>    If I want to have beans with my dinner tonight, I will go to my
>    cupboard and take out a can labeled beans and proceed to open it.  If
>    someone were to ask me what I was doing, I would tell them that I'm
>    getting ready to eat beans.  I make this statement because I have faith
>    that the contents of the can are in fact what they are labeled to be. 
>    In fact, I go through the action of opening the can, because of my
>    faith that doing so will allow me to have beans.  It is not until I
>    remove the lid and look inside (after I have acted) that I have a sure
>    knowledge of the contents of the can.  If I look into the can and find
>    peas, I have a sure knowledge that I have put my faith in a false
>    principle.  If I find beans, then I have a sure knowledge of the
>    presence of beans AND that the principle upon which I acted is true.
>    
>    If we apply my poor analogy to God's faith and omniscience - God
>    performed an act to create the earth.  The reason he performed that act
>    is because he knew that doing so would result in earth being created. 
>    He is omniscient in that he knows perfectly ALL correct and true
>    principles.  Because of this, if one of us were to query him during the
>    creation process, he would have stated that he was creating an earth. 

>    However, he must have faith in his knowledge of these correct
>    principles as a precondition to his using them to create the earth.

Jim:
      
Why must God 'have faith in his knowledge'?  To use your can of beans analogy
- if you were the one who created the can, and the contents within (beans), and
the label on the outside - what faith would you need to know that there
were beans inside the can?

In the same light, you state that God 'knows perfectly ALL correct and true
principles.'  I agree - He knows them because he created them.  He didn't
have to learn them or acquire an understanding of them.  The Bible teaches
us that God is the creator of ALL things.

Back to my original question:  If God created the principles upon which
he created the earth, why would it require any faith on His part?


Regards,
Tamara

This discussion is being moved from Note 284 regarding the existence of
more than one God.  As suggested to me by Allen in 284.9, I will review
the appropriate notes pertaining to the Godhead.  As of this time, I have
not done so.  However, please realize that I spent 8 active years in the
Church, so I'm very familiar with the teachings of the Church on this concept.


[Taken from 284.8 by me]

>>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>>direct me to the appropriate note(s).  Is the "existence of more than one
>>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept?  Upon reading
>>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>>one God.
    
It is my belief that the plurality of God concept is not Biblically based
meaning that it was not a concept taught in the Bible.  I know that the
scriptures unique to the LDS church (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants,
and Pearl of Great Price) do address this concept.
    
[Taken from 284.13 by MIGHTY::WILLIAMS] 

>Re: .8
>    
>    Hi,
>    
>    I believe it's a Biblical concept, but has been muddied through the
>    translations into English. Joseph Smith talked about this at length in
>    the Ken Follett Discourse (History of the Church, Vol 1, don't
>    remember the section off the top of my head). He takes particular
>    exception to the way the first word of the Genesis is translated. He
>    said something to the effect of the word really means "the head of the
>    Gods", but the translator didn't think that God only had a head, so he
>    changed the context from "the Head of the Gods" to "God". Very
>    interesting reading.
    
Bryan:

Please clarify this for me.  What does "the first word of the Genesis" refer
to - Genesis 1:1?  What translation is Joseph Smith referring to?


[Taken from 284.14 DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV]

>    Yes, Joseph spoke in his discourse of the "head" God of the Gods.
>    I have the book "Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook and Ehat, that compare
>    the different accounts of this discourse. In it Joseph speaks of
>    of Eloheim (sp), or Gods He Also talks of the concept
>    of there not ever being a son without a father, which leads to the
>    mortality of God, that he was once a man. Given we all have that spark
>    of divinity in ourselves, ie, God's spirit children, we shouldn't be
>    surprised to hear that God was once a mortal man, resurrected, and
>    exalted to Godhood, and that this is just one of His glorious creations.
   
Kevin:

I have very strong concerns about this issue of God being a man, etc.  My
current understanding (taken from the Book of Abraham) is that God went
through his own 'plan of salvation' on his own planet (called Kolob) with
his own parents.  And that his parents went through the same ordeal on their
planet with their parents etc.  How in the world, in the cosmos, can any
mortal being 'evolve' into a divine, immortal being?  If you don't have
the 'divine' genes within you to begin with, where does your 'divinity'
come from?

Regards,
Tamara

    
   
    > > Re:  .10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
    
   > I will be very interested in the references about God
   > increasing in knowledge.  I have a few concerns/issues
   > with this concept - but instead of stating my concerns
   > here, I will start a new note.  


    Tamara,

    This is the gist of Brigham's problem with Orson. In "The Seer",
    Orson proposed that once the Saints reached their exaltation, they
    woould stand on an equal footing with the Father. That we will
    know all, therefore there would be nothing more to learn. When Saints
    reached that point they would become one with the Father and Son,
    that would be the end of their progression. As for God's increase in 
    intelligence, From "The Seer" points 95-97 of  "pre-existance of man" 
    argues the notion that God's intelligence cannot be increased or 
    expanded in the least degree. ("Orson Pratt", England, pg 211.)

    Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of 
    doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
    on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
    For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a 
    good reference.

    Kevin
    

    Hi Tamara,
    
    Even though this question is not addressed to me, I would like to
    respond.  You ask how can we become divine if we do not have any
    'divinity' genes in us.  We do have 'divine' genes in us.  I don't know
    the specifics of what makes some of our genes divine, but this much I
    do know.  Another way to think of this problem is to ask what makes us
    immortal.  The scriptures teach us that we will become resurrected and
    immortal (oops, almost typed immoral ;)).  When we get resurrected,
    something in our bodies changes.  Some people have said that the blood
    in our veins changes to something else that will make us immortal.  I
    suspect this change from mortality to immortality is either connected
    to or similar to our becoming divine.  The bottom line is this, there
    is a change that occurs.  I don't know if this change is sudden or
    gradual.  I don't know if this change is brought on by ourselves
    internally or if it is brought about by external forces.  I suspect it
    is brought about gradually and internally.
         
    As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
    come out and say it is the way things are.  It does allude to it when
    some scriptures are examined closely.  Off the top of my head I can think of
    several instances where this is the case.  I'll bring up one example.
    
    When Moses received the 10 commandments, one of the commandments was
    "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."  It also mentions something
    about God being a jealous God.  What can he be jealous about if there
    is nothing else to be jealous about?  Some people have interpretted
    this scripture to mean different things.  I say that is true here also. 
    It could be referring to the god of money, the god of power, the god of
    sports, the god of hunting among other things.  IMHO, it also alludes to the
    fact that there is more than one God out there who is seeking after his
    glory.  The only one we should be concerned is our own Heavenly Father
    or Creator.
    
    For what it's worth.
    
    scott

    Tamara -
    
    This could turn into a very metaphysical discussion at this point.  You
    pose the question of why would God require faith in his knowledge of
    true principles, if he was the one who created those principles.  Once
    again however, we face the issue of creation.  You have God as the
    creator of "can of beans" from my analogy, but His act of creating them
    must have required that he have faith in his ability to do so,
    otherwise he would never undertake the act.
    
    Very quickly we get into a chicken and egg discussion.  If God created
    the principles and laws by which he created the earth, then by what did
    he create those principles and laws?  And, didn't that act of creation
    also require faith?
    
    This whole discussion hinges on the issue of were all laws, and even
    such concepts as truth and perfection, created by God.  My belief from
    my studies indicate that certain things such as Truth and Right exist
    independent of God and uncreated, although they are attributes which
    God possesses in perfection.  I believe from your statements that you
    believe that God created all such things as these.  This seems to be
    the point of departure between our positions.
    
    Jim

    
>    For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a 
>    good reference.

With all due respect to Elder McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine" is not the official
doctrine of the Church, but rather Elder McConkies personal ideas based on
his study, beliefs, etc.  Most of it probably is true however :-)

Also, principles don't change, only procedures.  Therefore, depending on exactly 
what you have in mind for the word doctrine, "present doctrine" should be
the same as "previous or old or ancient doctrine".  The Gospel is unchanging.

Chad

Jim and Tamara,

From my point of view (I certainly can't specify what is doctrine on this point)
God did have to have Faith in results of his actions in creating the world, as 
per Jim's analogy (I thought it was very apt). I believe that Matter is Eternal.
and that there are Eternal Principles. In other words, there are things that
were not defined by God but have always existed. So when he set about to create 
the earth, he was applying eternal principles that already existed to matter
that already existed and having faith that the results would be per his plan.

your brother,
Len

It seems that the discussion of does God have Faith rests on the assumption that
he know all things, and that if he does then he can't have faith.  So let me 
raise the question of his all knowingness.

I accept that with respect to mey mere limited mortal insight he knows all
things. But is there any scripture or other source that would indicate that
he know all things in the absolute sense?  I will suggest that part of what 
Brigham Young was addressing in this quote relates here.

   Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of 
    doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
    on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
In otherwords, if God really knows all things in the absolute sense (as opposed
to realitive to us) then there would be an end to his learning, or a 
"stopping place".

So where is it indicated that knows all things in all the eternities of both
time and space?

And by the way, if he did not know all those things would that make him less
of a god? or less to be trusted?  (ie. for a young man learning baseball to
be taught by "the greatest player that ever lived" would be more than enough
without having to worry whether or not the teacher was perfect).

What say ye?

Len

> Re: .18 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV  
    
>    Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
>    to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
>    would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
>    that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
>    of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
>    bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
>    (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
    
    Since this statement is in quotes, I assume that it's written 
    verbatim from the reference.  Goodness gracious - I'm sure glad 
    that the Church leaders today have better writing skills! ;^)
    
    Seriously though, what do you (Mormons) consider this statement
    to be:  a revelation, Church doctrine, one man's inspired
    opinion, one man's uninspired observation, or what?  Please
    explain your answer.  On a higher level, what *rule of thumb*
    do you adhere to when you hear or read the words of a prophet?
    How do you know which "classification" his words fall under?
        
> Re:  .19 by CURIE::WAGNER 
    
>    Very quickly we get into a chicken and egg discussion.  If God created
>    the principles and laws by which he created the earth, then by what did
>    he create those principles and laws?  And, didn't that act of creation
>    also require faith?
 
    Agreed.  I see your point.  We could go round and round and
    round on this . . ..
       
>    This whole discussion hinges on the issue of were all laws, and even
>    such concepts as truth and perfection, created by God.  My belief from
>    my studies indicate that certain things such as Truth and Right exist
>    independent of God and uncreated, although they are attributes which
>    God possesses in perfection.  I believe from your statements that you
>    believe that God created all such things as these.  This seems to be
>    the point of departure between our positions.

    I do not agree that Truth and Right exist independently of
    God and uncreated.  I would not call these "attributes" of God
    either.  It is my belief that God is the *source* of all truth
    and the *source* of all righteousness.  He is the originator
    of these principles.  He did not have to develop these attributes 
    as part of His progression.
    
    I think another point we differ on is that you believe that
    God went through a progressive cycle to get where He's at today.
    "As man is, God once was.  As God is, man may become."  (I
    hope I quoted that correctly.)  I do not believe this.  My
    God is the same today as He was yesterday (yesterday may be
    billions and billions of light years ago) as He will be tomorrow.
    
    
> Re:  .20 by NORGE::CHAD 
    
>Also, principles don't change, only procedures.  Therefore, depending on exactly 
>what you have in mind for the word doctrine, "present doctrine" should be
>the same as "previous or old or ancient doctrine".  The Gospel is unchanging.

    Amen, Chad!
    
> Re: .22 by ROYALT::LENF 
    
>In otherwords, if God really knows all things in the absolute sense (as opposed
>to realitive to us) then there would be an end to his learning, or a 
>"stopping place".
 
    Again, it seems that you're bringing God down to man's level
    - namely, that God is progressing in the same fashion man is
    progressing (or vice versa). . . line upon line, precept upon 
    precept.  This is where we differ in belief.
    
>So where is it indicated that knows all things in all the eternities of both
>time and space?                                           
    
    My first thought was the Bible.  I don't know how specific
    of a reference you're looking for, but in looking up a few
    things in my Bible, I found that in Job 11, Zophar the Naamathite
    is talking with Job, and praising the sovereignty and wisdom
    of God.  Of special interest to me were verses 5 through 12.

>And by the way, if he did not know all those things would that make him less
>of a god? or less to be trusted?  (ie. for a young man learning baseball to
>be taught by "the greatest player that ever lived" would be more than enough
>without having to worry whether or not the teacher was perfect).

>What say ye?

    If God did not know all things, He would not be God.  God is
    omniscient.  In other words, 
    
    		God = All-knowledge, all-knowing
    
    Anything less of "all-knowledge" negates this equation.     
    
    
    That's all for now.
    
    Regards,
    Tamara

> Re: .1 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON 
    
>    Even though this question is not addressed to me, I would like to
>    respond.  You ask how can we become divine if we do not have any
>    'divinity' genes in us.  We do have 'divine' genes in us.  I don't know
>    the specifics of what makes some of our genes divine, but this much I
>    do know.  Another way to think of this problem is to ask what makes us
>    immortal.  The scriptures teach us that we will become resurrected and
>    immortal (oops, almost typed immoral ;)).  When we get resurrected,
>    something in our bodies changes.  Some people have said that the blood
>    in our veins changes to something else that will make us immortal.  I
>    suspect this change from mortality to immortality is either connected
>    to or similar to our becoming divine.  The bottom line is this, there
>    is a change that occurs.  I don't know if this change is sudden or
>    gradual.  I don't know if this change is brought on by ourselves
>    internally or if it is brought about by external forces.  I suspect it
>    is brought about gradually and internally.
  
    I understand what you're saying about the mortal-to-immortal
    change.  But from my understanding, it seems like this change
    doesn't occur until *after* you're born.  My original question 
    (in other words) was:  Are you born (are you conceived, if
    you will) with 'divine' genes?
    
>    As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
>    come out and say it is the way things are. 
    
    So if the Bible doesn't come right out and say it, why does
    the Church believe in this concept?
    
>    When Moses received the 10 commandments, one of the commandments was
>    "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."  It also mentions something
>    about God being a jealous God.  What can he be jealous about if there
>    is nothing else to be jealous about? 
    
    In addition to the gods of money, power, fame, etc. that you
    mentioned, I believe that God was referring to the many idols
    and non-idols that were being worshipped by the people of that 
    day.  
    
    As an example, I learned in Sunday School a few months ago that 
    up through this Mosaic period, many of the people believed
    in fertility gods.  They believed that these gods provided
    the rain and the sun and all the *stuff* needed to produce
    good crops.  [This next part is pretty funky.]  The people
    believed that when it rained, the gods were having sex. So,
    in their temples, they had what was called a 'temple prostitute.'
    When the people desperately needed rain, they would engage
    in sexual activity with the 'temple prostitute' in hopes that
    the he/she gods above would look down and say, "Ahh - that
    looks like fun!  Let's do it!" and the gods would have sex,
    and it would rain.  This is what the people believed.
    
    The point of this example is to show that during this time,
    there were a lot of gods out there being worshipped.  I believe
    today we have a lot of gods out there - it's just that many of them are
    much more sophisticated.
    
    In regards to your remarks about God being a jealous God, let
    me quote a footnote out of my Bible:
    
       The first four of the Ten Commandments deal with the nature
       of God.  In the first commandment, Israel was to recognize
       no other God.  Yahweh alone is God.  The God who brought
       Israel out of captivity will not tolerate the worship of
       any other deity.  The second commandment forbids making
       any kind of idol that would become an object of worship,
       or reverence.  Only God is to receive our worship, adoration,
       and trust.  This commandment is reinforced with the declaration
       that God is a jealous God; that is, He takes himself seriously
       and will not tolerate any divided allegiance.
    
    Also, as a footnote to Exodus 34:14 which states:  Do not worship
    any other God, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous
    God.  [This is from the New International Version Bible.  If
    anyone would prefer me using the KJV in future references,
    please let me know.]  The footnote says:
    
       To underscore His prohibition of idolatry, God named Himself
       Jealous.  This name did not refer to a somewhat shallow
       and childish human emotion.  It was intended to emphasize that God
       will not tolerate a divided loyalty from us.  We ought to
       honor Him as the one true God and give Him something more
       than lip service.
    
    So, I don't think that God is jealous of the 'god' we choose
    to serve.  I think that when we say that He is our God that
    we devote *everything* we have to Him.  He wants us to be loyal
    because He is sovereign and He is greater than all these
    other 'gods.'
    
    Regards,
    Tamara
    
                               

	RE: Note 287.0  NWD002::DULL_TA 

>I have very strong concerns about this issue of God being a man, etc.  

	RE: Note 284.23  NWD002::DULL_TA 

>    I think another point we differ on is that you believe that
>    God went through a progressive cycle to get where He's at today.
>    "As man is, God once was.  As God is, man may become."  (I
>    hope I quoted that correctly.)  I do not believe this.  My
>    God is the same today as He was yesterday (yesterday may be
>    billions and billions of light years ago) as He will be tomorrow.
>
	Tamara
		This disbelief in Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation is
	apparent in your responses.  First, I think that we must come to a
	realization in the fact that we are not just *mortal* beings.  We are 
	immortal and eternal intelligences.  Only the tabernacle we inhabit 
	now is mortal, and we will be resurrected with an immortal one.  This 
	is the point you have missed.  The 'divine' genes in which we get our 
	'divinity' is in our spiritual bodies.  They come from God Himself, as
	we are the children of God.

		The correct quote is "As man now is, God once was:  As God now
	is, man may be." (SNOW, Biography, p.46)  Why do you deny the children
	the right to become as the parents are?  IF we are the children of God,
	then that is our right. 

		The God in which you worship is not the God of this world.  The
	biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
	the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself.  He abides 
	by the law.  He did not make it.  The priesthood He holds, and through
	which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
	with no beginning and no end.  Through this priesthood, He is able to
	govern as a God.

	Charles

Re .2

>>    As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
>>    come out and say it is the way things are. 
>    
>    So if the Bible doesn't come right out and say it, why does
>    the Church believe in this concept?
    
In note 4.67 I reviewed Biblical scriptures that suggest that we can become
exalted and be like God.  We LDS agree that those verses are only suggestions
and are subject to interpretation.  The reason, Tamara, why the LDS church
believes and teaches the concept that we can become like God is because the
Lord revealed it through Latter-day revelation.  One important point that needs
to be emphasized is that the LDS church is a restored church, a new dispensation
from God.  It is not based upon only the Bible but is based upon all of God's
revelations to man, i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, Pearl of GP, and
revelations to the prophet that haven't been canonized by the LDS people.  In
addition, we believe other scriptures will come forth and will be added to the
LDS cannon, such as for example, scriptures from the ten lost tribes. (This
idea of having non-Biblical scriptures is being discussed in note 10)

Allen

Replies .34 and .37-.40 touched upon the question of whether there are
more than one God or not.  Note 287 has been created to discuss this in depth.
The LDS belief that there are more than one God is known as "The Plurality
of Gods".  Note 4.67 reviews Biblical scriptures that suggest that we can
be come like God, i.e. become gods ourselves (a condition known in LDS
theology as "Exaltation").

By way of information, note 97 is discussing the Godhead.  Replies 34 and
37-40 of that note touch upon the question of there being more than one God.

>		The God in which you worship is not the God of this world.  The
>	biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
>	the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself.  He abides 
>	by the law.  He did not make it.  The priesthood He holds, and through
>	which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
>	with no beginning and no end.  Through this priesthood, He is able to
>	govern as a God.

    Charles,
    
    If God worked his way up to being God, and has not been God all
    along, then who was the first? And where did he come from? Who invented
    the priesthood?
    
    Ed
    
    

	RE: Note 287.6  TOMCAT::PRESTON 

>    Charles,
>    
>    If God worked his way up to being God, and has not been God all
>    along, then who was the first? And where did he come from? Who invented
>    the priesthood?
>    
>    Ed
>    
	Ed,
		That is a very good question and it would be nice to know the
	answer.  As it is, I do not know myself, and I know of nothing available
	to mankind on this earth that tells us.

		I can take my understanding only so far and then I have to ask
	myself if it applies or is necessary for my eternal salvation or not.
	If not, then I discard the question.  Other than that, I have to take
	what the Lord has revealed for the present time and go with that.

	Charles

>Bryan:
>
>Please clarify this for me.  What does "the first word of the Genesis" refer
>to - Genesis 1:1?  What translation is Joseph Smith referring to?

    Gladly. BTW - I was incorrect when I called it "The Ken Follett
    Discourse" - the name should read "The King Follett Discourse."

    First some background:  The Prophet was asked to speak at the funeral
    of a Brother King Follett, who was killed while building a well. The
    date of the sermon was Sunday, 7 April, 1844. Joseph had three
    "official" recorders of the sermon: Thomas Bullock, William Clayton,
    and Willard Richards. Wilford Woodruff also took notes for his journal.
    While all the men were experienced note takers, their methods differed.
    The published record of the Discourse was constructed from the notes of
    all 4 men and was published in the BYU Studies some years ago. I don't
    know the exact volume or year, but I know the text is titled "The King
    Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text" by Stan Larson.

    On page 202 of this edition, the text reads:

    I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything
    that is not contained in the Bible. If I should, you would cry treason,
    and I think there are so many learned and wise men here who would put
    me to death for treason. I will, then, go to the old Bible and turn
    commentator today. I will go to the very first Hebrew word - BERESHITH -
    in the Bible and make a comment on the very first sentence of the
    history of creation: "In the beginning..." I want to analyze the word
    BERESHITH. BE-in, by, through, and everything else; next ROSH-the head;
    ITH. Where did it come from? When the inspired man wrote it, he did not
    put the first part -BE- there; but a man, and old Jew without any
    authority, put it there. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about
    the head of any man. It read in the first: "The Head One of the Gods
    brought forth the Gods." This is the true meaning of the words. ROSHITH
    [BARA ELOHIM] signifies [the Head] to bring forth the Elohim. If you do
    not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No learned
    man can tell you any more than what I have told you. Thus, the Head God
    brought forth the Head Gods in the grand head council. I want to
    simplify it in the English language.

    O, ye lawyers, ye learned doctors, who have persecuted me, I want to
    let you know and learn that the Holy Ghost know something as well as
    you do. The Head One of the Gods called together the Gods and the grand
    councilors sat in grand council at the head in yonder heavens to bring
    forth the world and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were
    created at that time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the
    doctors and lawyers of the Scriptures. I have done so hitherto, to let
    the lawyers flutter and let everybody laugh at them. Some learned
    doctor might take a notion to say that the Scriptures say thus and so,
    and we must believe the Scriptures, for they are not to be altered. But
    I am going to show you an example of an error.

    ...

    He goes on to compare 4 different language translations and showing the
    real differences between them, showing errors in translations. (I can
    type this in, but I don't have alot of time just now).

    ...

    Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have
    introduced this testimony only to show that I am right and back up the
    word ROSH - the Head Father of the Gods. In the beginning, the Head of
    the Gods called a council of the Gods. The Gods came together and
    concocted a scheme to create this world and the inhabitants. When we
    begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God. We
    find out God  and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a
    knowledge of God, we know how to approach him and ask so that he will
    answer. When we begin to know how to come to Him, He begins to come to
    us. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to receive us. As
    soon as we begin to understand the character of God, He begins to
    unfold the heavens to us and tell us all about it before our prayers
    get to his ears.

    Now, I ask all the learned men who hear me, why the learned doctors who
    are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth
    out of nothing. They account it blasphemy to contradict the idea. If
    you tell them that God has made the world out of something, they will
    call you all fool. The reason is that they are unlearned but I am
    learned and know more than all the world put together - the Holy Ghost
    does anyhow. If the Holy Ghost in me comprehends more than all the
    world, I will associate myself with it.

    You ask them why, and they say, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the
    world?" And they infer that is must be out of nothing. The word create
    came from the word BARA, but it doesn't mean so. What does BARA mean?
    It means to organize; the same as a man would organize and use things
    to build a ship. Hence we infer that God Himself had materials to
    organize the world our of chaos, chaotic matter, which is element and
    in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time
    He had. The pure principles of element are principles that never can be
    destroyed. They may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed.
    Nothing can be destroyed. They never can have a beginning or an ending;
    they exist eternally. It is associated with the subject in question,
    the resurrection of the dead.

    .....

    There are 7 1/2 more pages of this sermon; I have typed in only one.
    I hope it answers your question.

    Bryan

================================================================================
Note 284.16                   Does God have faith?                      16 of 27
CURIE::WAGNER                                        48 lines  15-NOV-1989 17:22
                        -< Allow me to expand a little >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          [portions not pertaining to note 287 have been omitted]

    RE: 284.8
    
    Yes, the Lectures on Faith were actually prepared texts used at the
    School of the Prophets.  They were typically studied before the meeting
    of the School.  I'm not up enough on my history to give you much detail
    of how the School of the Prophets operated when they met.
    
    I just scanned through the past few replies, as I'm kind of pressed for
    time, but having made an entry I feel a responsibility to respond to
    questions about it.

    Faithfully,
    
    Jim

This note has fractured into three discussions.  I've moved the replies
pertaining to the discussion about differences between LDS leaders to note
211, and the replies about more Gods than one to note 287.  Please continue
those discussions in those notes. The discussions were interwoven with each
other, and I hope I didn't mess things up too badly in trying to separate
them.

Concerning statements by church leaders, please use this guideline:  It is
fine to post statements by leaders (e.g. Brigham Young & Orson Pratt) when
the *content* of the statements pertains to this note.  However, if your
remarks pertain to the *validity* of them instead of the *content*, please
use note 211.

>Re: .3 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" 
>
>	Tamara
>		This disbelief in Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation is
>	apparent in your responses.  

It shows?!  ;^)  What *should* be showing is that I don't believe in the
LDS version of the Plan of Salvation.  I *do* believe in God's plan of
salvation as taught in the Bible.

>	First, I think that we must come to a
>	realization in the fact that we are not just *mortal* beings.  We are 
>	immortal and eternal intelligences.  Only the tabernacle we inhabit 
>	now is mortal, and we will be resurrected with an immortal one.  This 
>	is the point you have missed.  

The reason I've missed this point (and I choose to miss it) is because I
don't believe that we are "immortal and eternal intelligences."  This is
an LDS teaching, not a Biblical teaching.

>		The correct quote is "As man now is, God once was:  As God now
>	is, man may be." (SNOW, Biography, p.46)  Why do you deny the children
>	the right to become as the parents are?  IF we are the children of God,
>	then that is our right. 

I would like to rephrase your question:  Why do I deny man the right to
become God?  This requires a more in-depth answer - which I will supply
in Note 211 (I think that's the right one).  But for right now, I will say
that the purpose for man is bring glory to God - not to become God.
            
>		The God in which you worship is not the God of this world.  The
>	biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
>	the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself.  He abides 
>	by the law.  He did not make it.  The priesthood He holds, and through
>	which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
>	with no beginning and no end.  Through this priesthood, He is able to
>	govern as a God.

Okay - am I getting this straight?  Eternal law came first, then God?  So
where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
in?  God was "in the beginning."
   

> Re: .4 by CACHE::LEIGH 

>The reason, Tamara, why the LDS church
>believes and teaches the concept that we can become like God is because the
>Lord revealed it through Latter-day revelation.  One important point that needs
>to be emphasized is that the LDS church is a restored church, a new dispensation
>from God.  It is not based upon only the Bible but is based upon all of God's
>revelations to man, i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, Pearl of GP, and
>revelations to the prophet that haven't been canonized by the LDS people.  

So as I understand it, the doctrine of becoming (like) God is supported
basically by latter-day revelation.  In your view, could the Bible stand
alone in supporting this concept?  

================================================================================
Note 287.12                There's More Than One God?                   12 of 12
NWD002::DULL_TA "You gotta love it!"                 57 lines  22-NOV-1989 03:39
                       -< If Only the Bible Taught This >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            

>Okay - am I getting this straight?  Eternal law came first, then God?  So
>where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
>in?  God was "in the beginning."

My own observation.... When I read those passages, coupled with what
has been revealed, I see that statement as pertaining to our creation in
this existance. As brought out in King Follett discourse, the Prophet
Joseph stated that create means to organise. To organise implies pre-
existing material. I see this to mean that there are a multitude of
worlds *organised* prior to this one, to necessarily the same being.
LDS teachings state that exaltation means at a point in eternity we will
create our own worlds. Going back to Heavenly Father, the same applies,
He had a father, and He was the result of this same process, implying
other creations. The "beginning" is our reference point for this creation.
Was there a first God? If so what was he made of? In terms of eternity
you have one eternal round. If there was no beginning, and no end, that is
what it is. The idea of a first God becomes irrelevant. Eternal law,
in my *opinion* co-exists with God. He is subject to it. On the concept 
of Heavenly father having a father the Prophet Joseph Smith elaborated on 
this in a June 16 1844 discourse, on plurality of Gods.

Kevin

As far as the "we can become God" assertion, I think there is often a gross
misunderstanding that prevails regarding this.  The misunderstanding is that
somehow, we glorify God less by becoming gods, that somehow we seek to replace
Him with ourselves.  The Scriptures bear testimony that this is not the case.
In fact, this plan is Lucifer's and not Christ's, as witnessed in Abraham
3:22-28.  To Mormons, to emulate God to the point where we become one with
God is the ultimate in glorifying God.  It is, in our view, what Christ was
trying to get us to do.  This is my own opinion.  Usual disclaimers apply.

Steve

re .12

>So as I understand it, the doctrine of becoming (like) God is supported
>basically by latter-day revelation.  In your view, could the Bible stand
>alone in supporting this concept?  

Hi Tamara,

I discussed in note 4.67 quite a number of Biblical scriptures that give
what I consider a strong inference that we can become as God is.  So, from
my viewpoint I would say that the Bible does support this doctrine.  However,
we LDS are the first to admit that even though this doctrine is inferred
by the Bible it is not clearly described (if it were, of course, then all
Christians would believe it).  Because of this lack of clarity, the Lord
revealed the doctrine through Latter-day revelation.

Allen

	RE: Note 287.12 NWD002::DULL_TA 


>It shows?!  ;^)  What *should* be showing is that I don't believe in the
>LDS version of the Plan of Salvation.  I *do* believe in God's plan of
>salvation as taught in the Bible.

	If you really understood the plan of salvation, the you would see
	that the "LDS" plan is the same as presented in the Bible, which
	is very sketchy at best, and scattered throughout.  I'm sure Allen
	must have a note somewhere that details it out.


>The reason I've missed this point (and I choose to miss it) is because I
>don't believe that we are "immortal and eternal intelligences."  This is
>an LDS teaching, not a Biblical teaching.

	ROM. 8:16	" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
			 that we are the children of God."

>I would like to rephrase your question:  Why do I deny man the right to
>become God?  This requires a more in-depth answer - which I will supply
>in Note 211 (I think that's the right one).  But for right now, I will say
>that the purpose for man is bring glory to God - not to become God.

	ROM. 8:17	" And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and
			 joint-heirs with Christ; ...."


>Okay - am I getting this straight?  Eternal law came first, then God?  So
>where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
>in?  God was "in the beginning."
   
	"In the beginning" of THIS earth.

    	RE: 287.14
    
    	I totally agree with Steve's assertion!! To bring that thought
    	"down" to a more basic level .... What father or mother wouldn't
    	swell with pride and be flattered when their child admires them
    	so much that the child strive's to become like his/her parents? 
	Wouldn't that be glorifying the parent/s in a way? Certainly it
    	would! This is what we (LDS) mean. We are God's children, we love
    	Him, and we want to be like Him to glorify Him...not to take His
    	place.
    
    
    
    	Dave Pyle
    	TFO 

    Hi there,
    
    One more reference to faith that has been ommitted from this discussion
    is Moroni's explaination of the brother of Jared's experience with
    the sixteen stones. 
    
    <Ether 3:19,20> 19 "And because of the knowledge of this man, he
    could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the
    finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew
    that it was the finger of the Lord; AND HE HAD FAITH NO LONGER,
    FOR HE KNEW, NOTHING DOUBTING." 20 "Wherefore, having this perfect
    knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore
    he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him."
    
    Needless to say, I do not think that God has faith. At least not
    the kind that we have, and can relate to.
    
    Jim 
                                                                  

	    Last night I had to give a fireside to the Young Men/Young Women.
	It was on Faith and Prayer.  It was a most difficult lesson to give.
	For the most part, I used "A New Witness for the Articles of Faith"
	by Bruce R. McConkie.  I have not read the whole book.  Even if I had
	I think it would not be completely understood.  Chapter 19 is on
	"Faith in God" and has a lot of references from the "Lectures on Faith"
	that Joseph Smith gave to the School of the Prophets.

	    The best I could come up with on resolving the difficulties I had
	with a discussion on faith is that there must be two aspects of faith.
	In Alma 32, he talks about the faith needed to come to a sure knowledge
	of a principle or doctrine.  Once that has been established, then there
	is no faith but a sure or perfect knowledge. (Alma 32 : 26, 34)  But in
	verse 36 he states that faith must not be laid aside because only the
	particular aspect of the experiment was tried.  Now, you might think
	I am rambling on about something inconsequential, but Bruce R. states
	that "Faith is the child of knowledge." (pg 166)  Most of what I had
	believed previously was that faith was exercised only to the point of
	a sure or perfect knowledge.  However, even if I have been given a
	sure witness of God, I still must exercise faith, "for whatsoever is
	not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) 

	   The concept of chapter 19 is that all that God does is based on a
	faith that "dwells in him independently" and "that faith is the 
	principle of power."  Lecture of Faith 1:16 tells us that "It is the
	principle by which Jehovah works, and through which he exercises all
	power over all temporal as well as eternal things.  Take this principle
	or attribute - for it is an attribute - from the Deity, and he would 
	cease to exist."

	    To quickly sum it what I have read, I would like to quote from 
	"A New Witness for the Articles of Faith" page 169, first paragraph :

	    God the Father is an eternal being.  The very name of the kind of
	life he lives is eternal life, and thus eternal life consists in
	living and being as he is.  In other words, eternal life is to gain
	the power of God, which power is faith, and thus to be able to do what
	he does and to live as he lives.  And the great and eternal plan of
	salvation that he has ordained and established consists of those laws,
	ordinances, and powers whereby faith is acquired and perfected until
	it is possessed in the same degree and to the same extent that it 
	exists in Deity.  Faith will thus dwell independently in every person
	who gains eternal life.

	Charles

	    Last night I had to give a fireside to the Young Men/Young Women.
	It was on Faith and Prayer.  I used "A New Witness for the Articles 
	of Faith" by Bruce R. McConkie, and chapter 41 was on prayer.  I 
	learned some things about it that I though were most interesting and 
	I would like to share them with you.

	    Prayer is a gift of God offered by a loving and gracious Father to
	his children.  It is a free gift ordained by God.  Prayer is governed
	by law. (D&C 130:20-21)  

	    "The law of prayer operates by faith; it is perfected by obedience;
	     it has greater power when there is conformity and uprightness in 
	     the lives of those who petition their God." (pg 384)

	But the most enlightening thing about prayer is that it involves and
	concerns all three members of the Godhead :

	    "We worship and pray to the Father, in the name of the Son,
	     by the power of the Holy Ghost." (pg 380)


	Charles

    I like it!
    
    Steve

    Great comments and use of references Charles. I certainly agree !

    There are some verses in the BoM that present the concept of the
    Trinity as used by orthodox Christianity:  Alma 11:26-29, Mormon
    9:9-11,19, Moroni 8:18, II Nephi 27:23, Alma 18:26-28, II Nephi 11:7, 
    26:12, 31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, and III Nephi 11:27,36.  These verses seem
    to contradict LDS teachings that God has a body, God has a father and
    mother, God and Christ are 2 gods, and that man can become as God is.
    How does the LDS church reconcile these verses with their teachings?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

	RE:  <<< Note 97.124 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
                             -< LDS & The Trinity >-

	Mike,

	There are many verses and discussion in this string (see replies 34,
	37-40) and 4.1 and 4.4 for a full discussion.  In just pursuing the
	scripture references you quoted, it reminds me of the story of the 
	blind men describing an elephant. One must look at the whole picture
	an not just isolated cases taken out of context.  There are, IMHO,
	biblical scriptures that repudiate the concept of the Trinity as used 
	by orthodox Christianity: one at Christ's baptism and another after
	he was resurrected.  When we speak of God, which God do we mean?  The
	God of us all (Heavenly Father) or the God of this earth (Jesus Christ
	or Jehovah)?

	Charles

    There are several passages in the Bible and BoM that describe the
    Godhead as ONE as well.  According to Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, and
    Matthew 19:26, I think God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. 
    Do LDS members view God in this way or is He limited?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    LDS members (being that they are here and have that limitation) have as
    many views of the Godhead as there are individuals to talk with.  Why
    should they be any different than anyone else??

    Now on the other hand there is a Church view, which if I'm not mistaken
    (and that happens a lot lately) is in here someplace in the beginning put
    in by our friend Leigh.  But remember, even that is limited by the
    knowledge we can accept as individuals or as a group.  We just can't
    understand some things even if they are set down in our laps (or happen
    in front of our eyes).

    rich

    Well we already know that both the Bible and BoM state that the Godhead
    is 1.  In passages such as where John baptizes Jesus, orthodox
    Christians use that in support of the trinity concept.  In that
    scenario, you have all 3 manifesting themselves.  This seems to demand
    that you believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent though.  If you
    believe God is an exalted man, then I can understand why you couldn't
    accept this concept (despite Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19).
    
    Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the Bible and BoM seem to
    agree on the orthodox Christian view of the Godhead.
    
    Mike

    RE:        <<< Note 97.126 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
                              -< Omnipotent God >-

>    There are several passages in the Bible and BoM that describe the
>    Godhead as ONE as well.  According to Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, and
>    Matthew 19:26, I think God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. 
>    Do LDS members view God in this way or is He limited?
    
	First, God is not limited and fulfills the attributes of omnipotent, 
	omnipresent, and omniscient. 

	The LDS view on the Godhead as one is also accepted, but in a different
	vein than the three-in-one concept.  The LDS concept is that the Godhead
	consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
	and purpose.  In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
	Covenants 1, verse 38 :

	"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;
	 and though heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass 
	 away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the
	 voice of my servants, it is the same."

	Whether by God the Father or His son Jesus Christ, it is the same.

	Scripture in the New Testament show the separation of the son, Jesus
	Christ, and our Heavenly Father (at least IMHO).  From St. John :

        5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
	     you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the 
	     Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the 
	     Son likewise.
          20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that him
	     self doeth; and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye
	     may marvel.
	  21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even 
	     so the Son quickeneth whom he will.  
          22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment 
	     unto the Son;
          23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,
             He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath 
             sent him.

	5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of
	     me, Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his 
	     shape.
	  38 And ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, 
	     him ye believe not.

        14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no 
	     man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 
           7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from
	     henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
           8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth 
             us.
           9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet 
	     hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen 
	     the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
          10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
	     the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the 
	     Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
          11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else 
	     believe me for the very works' sake.
          12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works
	     that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
             do; because I go unto my Father.

	The son does nothing except what he has seen the father do (5:19), and
	the father has given all responsibility to the son.  These are only a
	few scriptures that (again, at least to me) show the separation of the
	father and the son.

	Are the heavens closed?  Does God not talk to man whom He has made?
	NOT.  God reveals himself to mankind through his prophets (Amos), and
	he did so to Joseph Smith.  That manifestation clearly delineates the
	separateness of the Godhead.  Everything else is just speculation.

	Charles

>	consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
>	and purpose.  In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
    
    This is quite obviously implied to avoid schizophrenic characteristics. 
    However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
    they're one, purpose is *never* specified.  The original Hebrew intended
    it to be meant literally.  
    
    Re: John 5
    
    The relationships that Jesus Christ describes here indicate oneness as
    well.  John 5:11 sums it up:
    
>          11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else 
>	     believe me for the very works' sake.
    
    >	separateness of the Godhead.  Everything else is just speculation.
    
    I don't think I'd consider God's Word speculation.  Isaiah has much to
    say about the nature of God too in Isaiah 48:12-13,16, 46:9, 43:10-11,
    and 44:8.  In addition, the use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the
    original Hebrew of the OT, as well as John 8:58, clearly says Jesus
    Christ is God in a literal sense.
    
    Mike

RE:             <<< Note 97.130 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>

>>	consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
>>	and purpose.  In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
>    
>    This is quite obviously implied to avoid schizophrenic characteristics. 

	What ever that means.  It is not obvious to me...

>    However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
>    they're one, purpose is *never* specified.  The original Hebrew intended
>    it to be meant literally.  

	Context is important here.  Just because someone from the BOM is 
	talking about one concept rather than another does not mean that
	the other does not exist.  How does *anyone* living today know what
	some Hebrew meant thousands of years ago.  Nowhere is baptism for
	the dead *specified* in the Bible, but Paul just gives it a passing
	reference.  That does not mean it was not a viable doctrine (and must
	have been taught and understood) in Paul's days.

	The Bible is quite incomplete on what Jesus Christ did and taught.  
	The doctrines he laid out by precept and example are not all recorded.
	If a person is willing to be directed by incompleteness, then that is
	their right, but it does mean that everyone has to.


>    Re: John 5
>    
>    The relationships that Jesus Christ describes here indicate oneness as
>    well.  John 5:11 sums it up:
>    
>>         11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else 
>>	      believe me for the very works' sake.
>    
>    >	separateness of the Godhead.  Everything else is just speculation.
>    
>    I don't think I'd consider God's Word speculation.  Isaiah has much to
>    say about the nature of God too in Isaiah 48:12-13,16, 46:9, 43:10-11,
>    and 44:8.  In addition, the use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the
>    original Hebrew of the OT, as well as John 8:58, clearly says Jesus
>    Christ is God in a literal sense.
    
	That Jesus Christ is God in a literal sense is also confirmed by LDS
	doctrine, but LDS doctrine also rejects the popular secular belief that
	he is also at the same time the Father and Holy Ghost.

	Isaiah was clearly in a quandary on what to tell Israel, and pained when
	they would not listen.  He laid out the conditions to detect the what,
	when, and who about the Messiah, but did it do any good. No, it did not.
	Just because he would not discuss each and every aspect about God does
	not mean those aspects are not there.  He did not want to cast his
	pearls of knowledge to swine, but that does not mean what he did talk
	about was the whole ball of wax.

	If you want to talk about the Bible as God's Word, then be aware of
	the LDS doctrine that we believe so only to the extent that is is
	correctly translated.  This concept is discussed else ware in this
	conference and should not be in this topic.

	Charles

    This isn't so very difficult.
    
    John 17:20,21
        Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
    believe on me through their word;
        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.
    
    Did Jesus mean for the Twelve to lose their seperate identities
    and become part of the Godhead?  How does one send onesself on
    an errand?
    
    The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
    "be ye of one mind."
    
    tx [dale]
     

    >    The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
    
    I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
    the Godhead.  Why would they have different purposes in the first
    place?  Why would they even want different purposes?
    
    John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose.  Again the
    implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
    the purpose takes care of itself.
    
    Mike

>      <<< Note 97.133 by FRETZ::HEISER "most corrupt White House ever" >>>
>                         -< it can be very difficult >-
>
>    >    The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
>    
>    I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
>    the Godhead.  Why would they have different purposes in the first
>    place?  Why would they even want different purposes?
>    
>    John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose.  Again the
>    implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
>    the purpose takes care of itself.

	20 Neither pray I for these alone, but from them also  which
           shall believe on me through their world;
	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.

	I see nothing refering to being one in spirit here.  Implied or 
	otherwise.  

	The purpose of each member of the Godhead is the same, and to be one 
	with Christ and/or the Godhead, is to come to have that same purpose.

	D&C 38:27  ... I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are 
                       not mine.

        MOSES 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass 
                   the immortality and eternal life of man.

	The purpose of God is plainly stated, and unless a person on this
	earth has not the same purpose, then they are not one with God and
	are not his.  To become joint-heirs with Christ means that we have to
	learn, and obey, God's ways because his ways are not mankinds, or the
	worlds, ways.

    re: 
    > However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
    > they're one, purpose is *never* specified.  The original Hebrew intended
    > it to be meant literally.  
    
    and .133
    > I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
    > the Godhead.  Why would they have different purposes in the first
    > place?  Why would they even want different purposes?
    
    > John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose.  Again the
    > implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
    > the purpose takes care of itself.
    
    Mike,
       WADR, and conceding that i may not have adaquately expressed
    myself, you did not address the main point of my comment.
    
    If the we are to take the scriptures literally, as you suggest, 
    then how do you reconcile Jesus' prayer to the Father in John 17:
    20-21?  He asked that the Twelve become one with him, EVEN AS HE
    IS ONE WITH THE FATHER.  If Jesus and The Father are one individual,
    then He was asking that the Twelve be absorbed into the Godhead
    with the concomittant loss of their individual identities.  If, on
    the other hand, Jesus and the Father are seperate individuals, then
    their "one"ness consists of "being of one mind" (purpos.  It 
    would then follow that Jesus' prayer requests a similar unity with
    the Twelve, which is the only notion wholely consistant with all 
    other scripture.
    Our Father in Heaven did not intend this to be difficult or 
    obscure, it has only been made so by those purposes are advanced
    by obfuscation.
    
    [dale]

    Re: last two
    
    As you don't see anything in those passages about being 1 in the
    Spirit, implied or otherwise, I don't see anything in the multitude of
    verses that say the Godhead is one in purpose, implied or otherwise.
    
>    IS ONE WITH THE FATHER.  If Jesus and The Father are one individual,
>    then He was asking that the Twelve be absorbed into the Godhead
>    with the concomittant loss of their individual identities.  If, on
    
    Obviously by now you know I subscribe to the Trinity concept.  When I
    speak of God's triune nature, I believe the Father, Son, and Holy
    Spirit are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, three Persons of the
    same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26).  The Holy Spirit is what links us
    to God, and I believe what you're reading into the concept isn't true.
    The Christians' common bond is the Holy Spirit, there isn't some
    metaphysical absorption going on.
    
    hopefully that clarifies,
    Mike

	Then to disagree is all we can agree on.

    I have a question for those persons who call themselves "Triune-ists",
    meaning they believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one
    person, having 3 different manifestations.  As I understand this
    position (once having believed in the 3-in-1 Triune Doctrine, it goes
    like this:
    
    The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are really all the same being, one God
    who has chosen to show himself to manking in 3 different ways (much
    like the fact that I am at the same time a father, a husband and a
    Digital employee).
    
    The Triune Doctrine also says that "God is spirit." (quote from New
    Testament).  However, consider the following:
    
    Jesus Christ had a body.  And when he resurrected he took that body
    with him.  Thus, in the heavens Jesus has a body, but "God is spirit."
    It would seem then that God the Father must reside in Christ's body,
    because of this 3-in-1 doctrine says they are one person.
    
    Is this reasoning correct?
    
    LDS Doctrine differs from the Triune Doctrine in 2 cases:
    
    	1.  The Father and Son have a body (supported by the fact that Christ
            took his  with him in the resurrection.)
     
    	2.  The Father, Son and Holy Ghose are 3 separate and distinct
    	    beings. (Also supportable is you believe God the FAther is
    	    Spirit, but the Son has his body.)
    
    Anyhow, I would like to hear thoughts and opinions.
    
    Paul

>    The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are really all the same being, one God
>    who has chosen to show himself to manking in 3 different ways (much
>    like the fact that I am at the same time a father, a husband and a
>    Digital employee).
    
    As far as I know, this sounds correct.  God manifests Himself in 3
    ways.
    
>    The Triune Doctrine also says that "God is spirit." (quote from New
>    Testament).  However, consider the following:
    
    ...and Alma 11:26-28
    
>    Jesus Christ had a body.  And when he resurrected he took that body
>    with him.  Thus, in the heavens Jesus has a body, but "God is spirit."
>    It would seem then that God the Father must reside in Christ's body,
>    because of this 3-in-1 doctrine says they are one person.
    >
>    Is this reasoning correct?
    
    Obviously there are details that we can only speculate about.  However,
    Jesus Christ appears to be the physical manifestation of God.  The Holy
    Spirit would appear to be the glue that holds it all together so I'd
    agree that God is in Jesus.  I'm fairly certain that Jesus even stated
    this in the NT.  Again, I'm no expert on this (and I'd guess most
    people aren't since it's a tough topic), but I know of no other way to
    reconcile the numerous verses that state the Godhead is one.  The "one
    in purpose" doesn't cut it with me.  
    
>    LDS Doctrine differs from the Triune Doctrine in 2 cases:
>    	1.  The Father and Son have a body (supported by the fact that Christ
>            took his  with him in the resurrection.)
    
    What about Alma 11:26-28?  It says God is a Spirit.  Also, the Bible says 
    in Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man.  
     
>    	2.  The Father, Son and Holy Ghose are 3 separate and distinct
>    	    beings. (Also supportable is you believe God the FAther is
>    	    Spirit, but the Son has his body.)
    
    II Nephi 11:7, 26:12, 31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, III Nephi 11:27,36
    
>    Anyhow, I would like to hear thoughts and opinions.
    
    Well Paul, you got my 2�

    Mike

RE: <<< Note 97.139 by FRETZ::HEISER "impeach the President and her husband" >>>
                       -< Book of Mormon says they're 1 >-

>    ...and Alma 11:26-28
    
>    What about Alma 11:26-28?  It says God is a Spirit.  Also, the Bible says 
>    in Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man.  
     
	Mike,
		You keep quoting Alma 11:26-28.  I show it here :

	11:26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living
              God?
	11:27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
	11:28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

	Either I have the wrong BofM, or your reference is incorrect.  

	This says nothing about God is a Spirit, however, from the NT in the 
	Bible, John chapter 4, verse 24 does say that.  This does in no way
	contradict LDS theology, and, in fact, is exactly what Paul is talking
	about.  We believe that God, the Father, is a resurrected, perfected
	being with a spiritual body of flesh and bones; just the same as Jesus
	Christ now has.  Your quote that God is not a man is correct.  It is
	extremely important that the Holy Ghost have no physical body; else it
	would be most difficult communing with our Heavenly Father, for we
	"talk" spirit to spirit through the power of the Holy Ghost.

 	John, Chapter 3

	     6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and  that  which
	       is born of the Spirit is spirit.

	John Chapter 4

	     23 But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the   true
	        worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:
	        for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
      -->    24 God is a Spirit; and they that worship him  must  worship
	        him in spirit and in truth.

	John Chapter 6

	     63 It is the spirit that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth
	        nothing;  the  words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
	        and they are life.
	     64 But there are some of you that  believe  not.  For  Jesus
	        knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and
	        who should betray him.
	     65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no  man  can
	        come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
	     66 From that time many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and
	        walked no more with him.
	     67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
	     68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go?
	        thou hast the words of eternal life.
	     69 And we believe and are sure that thou  art  that  Christ,
	        the Son of the living God.

	[In verse 65 and 69 we can see the separation, and again in 
	 the next verse]

	John Chapter 15

	     26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
	     from  the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
	     from the Father, he shall testify of me;

	[Now let us look at what kind of *body* a resurrected person has.]


	I CORINTHIANS Chapter 15

	     15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because  we
	        have  testified  of  God  that  he raised up Christ; whom he
	        raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

	[Either God, the Father, raised up Christ, or he did not.  If not, then
	 the apostles are found to be found false witnesses of God.]

	     28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall
	        the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things
	        under him, that God may be all in all.

	[Even though Christ has been given the task to subdue all here, he is
	 still accountable to his Father.]

	     35 But some man will say, How are the dead  raised  up?  and
	        with what body do they come?
	     36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not  quickened,  ex-
	        cept it die;
	     37 And that which thou sowest, thou  sowest  not  that  body
	        that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of
	        some other grain;
	     38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him,  and  to
	        every seed his own body.
	     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.
	     41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory  of  the
	        moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth
	        from another star in glory.
	     42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It  is  sown  in
	        corruption; it is raised in incorruption;
	     43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised  in  glory;  it  is
	        sown in weakness; it is raised in power;
	     44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
	        There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

	[Even though the resurrection will be with various degrees of glory,
	 verse 44 shows that it will be a spiritual body and not one of man.]

	     45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a  liv-
		ing soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
	     46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,  but  that
	        which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

	[First a natural body (like the one you have now) and then spiritual.]

	     47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man  is
	        the Lord from heaven.
	     48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and
	        as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
	     49 And as we have borne the image of the  earthy,  we  shall
	        also bear the image of the heavenly.
	     50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot in-
	        herit  the  kingdom  of God; neither doth corruption inherit
	        incorruption.

	[The body we have now of flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of
	 Heaven because it is carnal in nature.  A resurrected body is one of
	 flesh and bone, but not containing blood.  Jesus Christ was the first
	 fruits of the resurrection, and his spirit body (which preached to the
	 spirits in prison) was encased in an *incorruptible* physical
	 *spiritual* body; never to be separated.]

	So it seems that a clear definition of what spiritual means is in
	order before casting aside doctrine.  Paul plainly teaches that the
	bodies before and after resurrection are different, and the latter
	is referred to as a *spiritual* body.  So if we believe that God is
	a resurrected being, then he is indeed a spirit.

	Charles

    I think I confused you. My simple conclusion is this:
    
    God the Father must have a body since He and Jesus are one.  Jesus took
    his body to heaven and thus the Father resides in Christ's body because
    of their being one person.  Thus,  God (The Father and the Son) have a
    body (Christ's).
    
    Now, if the Holy Spirit also is part of this oneness, then does he also
    have a body (Christ's).  Whatever the reasoning, God has a body. 
    Christ's body.
    
    Yes?
    
    
    

>		You keep quoting Alma 11:26-28.  I show it here :
>	Either I have the wrong BofM, or your reference is incorrect.  
    
    Sorry, my mistake.  It should be Alma 18:26-28.

    >                        -< One inescapable conclusion. >-
    
    another one is that God is not a man, and He never changes, therefore
    he was never a man, and thusly not a resurrected being.

>  <<< Note 97.143 by FRETZ::HEISER "impeach the President and her husband" >>>
>                               -< another view >-
>
>    >                        -< One inescapable conclusion. >-
>    
>    another one is that God is not a man, and He never changes, therefore
>    he was never a man, and thusly not a resurrected being.

	Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
	He did nothing that he had not already seen the Father do, so he
	(God, the Father) must have done the same thing.  God, the Father, 
	is not a man *right* now, but that does not mean he wasn't at some 
	previous point in time.

	Following your line of reasoning would cause one to wonder if the
	Bible was correct at all.  I mean, after all, we are all mankind
	(male and female) right now, and I am still hoping, and looking
	forward to, the promise of resurrection.

>	Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
    
    I think that only applies to the time he spent on earth.
    
>	He did nothing that he had not already seen the Father do, so he
>	(God, the Father) must have done the same thing.  God, the Father, 
>	is not a man *right* now, but that does not mean he wasn't at some 
>	previous point in time.
    
    This is because God was in the Son (the Bible says Jesus Christ
    contains the fullness of the Deity).  He did what Christ did as Jesus
    did it.  God is not a man and tells us this Himself.  Paul also tells
    us that Jesus Christ is the Creator while Genesis says God is the
    Creator.  Many places in both the Bible and Book of Mormon say they're
    one.  That's because God is a triune being.  If they were separate
    beings, they both couldn't be the Creator.
    
>	Following your line of reasoning would cause one to wonder if the
>	Bible was correct at all.  I mean, after all, we are all mankind
>	(male and female) right now, and I am still hoping, and looking
>	forward to, the promise of resurrection.
    
    Genesis 1 says we're created in the Deity's likeness or image.  It
    doesn't say we're *exact* clones.  

>   <<< Note 97.145 by FRETZ::HEISER "can you see who I am thru those eyes" >>>
>                                -< the Creator >-
>
>>	Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
>    
>    I think that only applies to the time he spent on earth.

	Either Paul is right or he is wrong.  Which is it?  Christ was born
	to Mary with a mortal body.  He was a man.  Period.  He was the
	first fruits of the resurrection.  No matter how hard you try, you 
	can't have it both ways.
    
>    God is not a man and tells us this Himself.  

	That's correct right now.  But nowhere does it say he wasn't, so I
	guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

>    Paul also tells
>    us that Jesus Christ is the Creator while Genesis says God is the
>    Creator.  Many places in both the Bible and Book of Mormon say they're
>    one.  That's because God is a triune being.  If they were separate
>    beings, they both couldn't be the Creator.

	Jesus Christ is God is Jehovah is the Creator.  

	They are all one in the same.
	

    All this discussion back and forth.  Does he have a body?  How can they
    be 3 in 1? Etc.  I spent hours and hours discussing it with priests and
    ministers, trying to understand who was listening when I  prayed, the
    Father the part, the Christ part or the Holy Spirit.  And how could you
    address one or the other.  I finally stopped praying because I did not
    know who was listening.
    
    It was not until I bumped into the Mormons that I was finally able to
    understand.  And it is easy to understand.
    
    God the Father is a separate being, with a body.  He has commissioned
    his son (a separate being), to create a world, to come to that world to
    teach by precept and by example, the path/way of righteousness, and to
    atone for humanity's sins.  Jesus did these things and also showed us
    how to understand the Father. Jesus points the way to the father.  Yet,
    Christ retains his place as savior and creator.  
    
    Now when I pray, I do so to the Father, in the name of Christ.  And The
    Father hears and answers through his "communication vehicle", The Holy
    Ghost.  
    
    All this explanation may seem simplistic, only because it is a simple 
    concept.  The last 2,000 years of Christian history have convoluted
    the doctrine (especially around 300 AD) to the point of its being
    IN MY OPINION an incomprehensible doctrine of 3-in-1.
    
    The above is my opinion.  I believe in 3 distinct gods.  I do not
    believe in the Triune God of other Christians faiths.
    
    Paul  

    re .147
    
    Thank you Paul. Like Jesus' examples your note was clear and to the
    point. I for one, agree 100%.
    
    Frank M 

	Here are some New Testament scriptures for reference that Jesus Christ
	came down from his throne and walked among men as a man in the flesh.
	Close reading will also show that Christ is separate from his Father
	who sent him (I think the whole New Testament is littered with many,
	many, scriptures that show this if one would but believe them instead
	of the philosophies of man).

	John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
		  from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

	John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
		  will of him that sent me.

	Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
		   the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
		   flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

	Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
		      his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

	Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
		    angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
		    honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for
		    every man.

	1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ;
		   not by water only, but by water and blood.  And it is the 
		   Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Re: .147

>    It was not until I bumped into the Mormons that I was finally able to
>    understand.  And it is easy to understand.

>    The above is my opinion.  I believe in 3 distinct gods.  I do not
>    believe in the Triune God of other Christians faiths.

Wasn't it difficult as a convert from Christianity to accept the concept of 
the existence of more than one God?   

    

    Re. 150
    
    Was it hard for me to accept the concept of multiple Gods?
    
    No, not at all.  Every Christian accepts multiple Gods.  There are,
    after all, 3 Gods in the Godhead. 
    
    What drove me away from Chritianity was the concept of 3 in 1 Gods.  AS
    I said before, when I  prayed I could not figure out who was listening
    and who was responding.  
    
    With Mormonism,  I was taught that indeed there are still 3 Gods, but
    the one to pray to is the Father.  Jesus, being separate, occupies a
    different place for me.  He is my savior, redeemer, advocate with the
    father, intermediary.  I have a "hope in Christ", that his atoning
    blood will cover my sins and guilt.  Do I worship Christ?
    Difficult word "worship" is.  I revere him, acknowledge his
    messiahship, and his divinity as part of the Godhead.  But, in reality,
    my devotions (gratitude, songs of joy and praise, etc.) and my prayers
    are to the Father, in the name of Christ.
    
    So, while traditional Christianity confused me with the 3-in-1 God,
    whose identity was confusing because of the 3 aspects/manifestations of
    him, the LDS teaching of the Godhead with 3 separate beings who have
    different identities, functions and even personalities, this teaching
    came as major clarification to my confusion and wonderful understanding
    that a loving Eternal Father wanted me to know him, to "feel after
    him". And the way of access was to follow Jesus' teachings, especially
    as it conerns praying to the Father.
    
    So now, I pray to the Father, hear his response and am every grateful
    that I have acess to him.  But it is Jesus who taught me 1) to do it,
    2) how to do it, 3)and to use his name when doing it.
    
    Paul

Note 97.146                        The Godhead                        146 of 151
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           28 lines  18-MAR-1994 07:24

�>    I think that only applies to the time he spent on earth.
�
�	Either Paul is right or he is wrong.  Which is it?  Christ was born
�	to Mary with a mortal body.  He was a man.  Period.  He was the
�	first fruits of the resurrection.  No matter how hard you try, you 
�	can't have it both ways.

I think there's some misunderstanding here.  I didn't mean to imply that He
wasn't a man while on earth.  Jesus Christ was fully-God and man, the God-man.
That's why He was called Immanuel.  
    
�>    God is not a man and tells us this Himself.  
�
�	That's correct right now.  But nowhere does it say he wasn't, so I
�	guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

So are you saying that both the Bible and BoM are wrong in saying that God never
changes and is the same yesterday, today, and forever?

�	Jesus Christ is God is Jehovah is the Creator.  
�	They are all one in the same.

Exactly what I've been trying to say.  

Note 97.147                        The Godhead                        147 of 151
AKOCOA::RONDINA                                      30 lines  18-MAR-1994 15:16

�    All this discussion back and forth.  Does he have a body?  How can they
�    be 3 in 1? Etc.  I spent hours and hours discussing it with priests and
�    ministers, trying to understand who was listening when I  prayed, the
�    Father the part, the Christ part or the Holy Spirit.  And how could you
�    address one or the other.  I finally stopped praying because I did not
�    know who was listening.

All you had to do was read the passage where Jesus Christ gives the Lord's
Prayer (Matthew 6).  He tells us how to pray to God.  In Matthew 18:19 He says
to pray in the *name* of Jesus.
    
�    God the Father is a separate being, with a body.  He has commissioned

God does not have a body.  God is a Spirit.  Both of our books state this
clearly.

>    his son (a separate being), to create a world, to come to that world to
>    teach by precept and by example, the path/way of righteousness, and to
>    atone for humanity's sins.  Jesus did these things and also showed us
>    how to understand the Father. Jesus points the way to the father.  Yet,
>    Christ retains his place as savior and creator.

Agreed.
    
>    Now when I pray, I do so to the Father, in the name of Christ.  And The
>    Father hears and answers through his "communication vehicle", The Holy
>    Ghost.

Agreed.  I don't know what Christian denomination you belonged to, but they
should've been able to tell you that.
    
�    All this explanation may seem simplistic, only because it is a simple 
�    concept.  The last 2,000 years of Christian history have convoluted
�    the doctrine (especially around 300 AD) to the point of its being
�    IN MY OPINION an incomprehensible doctrine of 3-in-1.

I don't think so.  I'm an orthodox Christian and agreed with your simply
explanation.
    
�    The above is my opinion.  I believe in 3 distinct gods.  I do not
�    believe in the Triune God of other Christians faiths.
    
Paul, folks in here are telling me they're one.  Both of our books say they're
one.  Then all of you try to tell me they are separate gods.  I'm confused.
Frankly, it smacks of polytheism.  

regards,
Mike

    Yes, Mike, Christianity is a polytheistic religion.  And so was the
    religions of Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc.  The Jews for centuries are
    saying "God is one."  Along comes Jesus and says,  "Folks, there are
    more than one.  There is the Father, me, and after I leave you I will
    send you another God (Holy Spirit)."
    
    "Yikes!", say the believers.  "We are starting to look like the idol
    worshipping heathens.  WE must do something about this 3 god thing."
    
    Scene 300 AD, Council of Nicea.  The problem is fixed.  SAy the
    theologians, "Yep, there are 3 gods, BUT THEY ARE ALL ONE."
    
    "HUH", say the believers.
    
    "Oh, it's a mystery.  Our paltry minds cannot comprehend such a
    doctrine.  Trust me, it is true."
    
    1700 years later, we are still trying to understand this "mystery".
    
    What I am saying in my discussion is that God the Father has a body,
    because the 3-in-1 idea is that he and Christ (and the Holy Spirit)
    reside/occupy the same being/person.  God the Father resides in
    Christ's body because took his body with him in his resurrection.
    
    The doctrine "God is a spirit and has not body" seems contradictory
    because of the resurrected body of Christ and because of this 3-in-1
    idea.
    
    The LDS doctrine, on the other hand, seems logical since the FAther and
    the Son are separate beings/persons/individuals.  I would thing that
    traditional Christians would love this idea because then they can say
    "God is a spirit, but Christ has a body and the Holy Ghost is a spirit
    too."  Christ's resurrected body presents a major problem to believing
    that the Father is spirit only.
    
    That is how I see it?  And that is why the LDS Doctrine of the Godhead
    seems so understandable.  By the way if you read the Joseph Smith First
    Vision story, you will see that Joseph had no understanding of the 3
    distinct beings.  He had been taught the 3-in-1 doctrine.  Imagine his
    confusion (?) at finding out something different.  Clearly something he
    had not intended to happen.
    ]
    Paul

RE: <<< Note 97.152 by FRETZ::HEISER "can you see who I am thru those eyes" >>>

>�>    God is not a man and tells us this Himself.  
>�
>�	That's correct right now.  But nowhere does it say he wasn't, so I
>�	guess we can agree to disagree on this one.
>
>So are you saying that both the Bible and BoM are wrong in saying that God 
>never changes and is the same yesterday, today, and forever?

	What is change?  Does God *progress*?  Yes, he does.  Does he change
	his mind once he has given a commandment or law?  No, he does not.
	Can I believe what God has told me?  Yes, I can because he is truth.

	The progression of the children of God is that we, as he himself
	before, must experience mortality before we are resurrected as spiritual
	beings.  There is a progression.  Does that constitute change?  I guess
	it would depend upon your perspective of the discussion context.

	God, as God, does not deviate from his course once it is set.  He is
	then the same yesterday, today, and forever.  But he had to get to a
	point where he could be considered a God;  build a world and populate
	it with his spirit children.  God *creates* spirit children, and then
	provides a mortal body for them and allows them to *procreate* mortal
	bodies for his spiritual children.  He incorporates a Plan of Salvation
	with a redeemer for the spiritual children encased in mortal physical 
	bodies, and this allows them to also become joint-hiers with immortal 
	spiritual bodies.  In this way God progresses because he has his 
	children progress.

	So when we talk about God never changes and is the same yesterday, 
	today, and forever, let's be sure of the discussion context.  The 
	direction and attributes which God displays will never change, and
	I think this is different from the exaltation of God.

>�	Jesus Christ is God is Jehovah is the Creator.  
>�	They are all one in the same.
>
>Exactly what I've been trying to say.  

	Except that God, the Father, and God, the Holy Ghost, are completely
	separate and physically apart from Jesus Christ.

	Regards,
	Charles

Note 97.153                        The Godhead                        153 of 154
AKOCOA::RONDINA                                      43 lines  22-MAR-1994 08:35
    
>    Yes, Mike, Christianity is a polytheistic religion.  And so was the
>    religions of Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc.  The Jews for centuries are
>    saying "God is one."  Along comes Jesus and says,  "Folks, there are
    
    That's not correct.  Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim."  Hebrew
    is unique in its noun forms.  Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
    *always* knew God was triune in nature.
    
>    The LDS doctrine, on the other hand, seems logical since the FAther and
>    the Son are separate beings/persons/individuals.  I would thing that
>    traditional Christians would love this idea because then they can say
>    "God is a spirit, but Christ has a body and the Holy Ghost is a spirit
>    too."  Christ's resurrected body presents a major problem to believing
>    that the Father is spirit only.
    
    So you're saying God's Word is wrong again?  What about atonement for
    all of your sins?  Did God pay the price or a lesser god in the person
    of Jesus Christ?  There's something that seems to be missing in how you
    view the Trinity concept.  You seem to think that God is not
    omnipresent or omnipotent because God can't be a spirit and present
    Himself in Jesus Christ at the same time.  I'll say it again:
    
    Both the OT and NT proclaim the triune nature of God - Father, Son, and
    Holy Spirit.  They are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, three Persons
    of the same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26).  God is a personality who can 
    speak and who possesses a mind and will (Genesis 1:1,26, Jeremiah 29:11, 
    Ezekiel 18:30).  God's character is eternal (I Timothy 1:17), omnipotent 
    (Revelation 19:6), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12), omniscient (Romans 11:33),
    perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), and holy (I Peter 1:16).  More supportive 
    Scriptures can be found in I Corinthians 8:6, Isaiah 43:10, Exodus 3:14, 
    I Timothy 2:5, Psalm 90:2.
    
Note 97.154                        The Godhead                        154 of 154
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           46 lines  22-MAR-1994 09:39
    
>	What is change?  Does God *progress*?  Yes, he does.  Does he change
    
    God already possesses eternal wisdom, power, and knowledge, and so never
    changes (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Jeremiah 23:24, Isaiah 40:28, supports 
    Mormon 9:9-11,19, Moroni 8:18, II Nephi 27:23).
    
>	his mind once he has given a commandment or law?  No, he does not.
>	Can I believe what God has told me?  Yes, I can because he is truth.
    
    Agreed on both.

>	So when we talk about God never changes and is the same yesterday, 
>	today, and forever, let's be sure of the discussion context.  The 
>	direction and attributes which God displays will never change, and
>	I think this is different from the exaltation of God.
    
    God has always been God.  God tells us this through Isaiah and that
    there are NONE before or after Him.

>	Except that God, the Father, and God, the Holy Ghost, are completely
>	separate and physically apart from Jesus Christ.

    There is only one God, but 3 distinct persons in the Godhead (Deuteronomy 
    6:4, Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Matthew 3:16-17, supports II Nephi 11:7, 26:12, 
    31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, III Nephi 11:27,36).
    
    later,
    Mike

>>	Except that God, the Father, and God, the Holy Ghost, are completely
>>	separate and physically apart from Jesus Christ.
>
>    There is only one God, but 3 distinct persons in the Godhead (Deuteronomy 
>    6:4, Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Matthew 3:16-17, supports II Nephi 11:7, 26:12, 
>    31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, III Nephi 11:27,36).
    
	Then all we can agree on is to disagree.  You go your way and I will
	go mine.  We can spend the rest of eternity discussing semantics and
	interpretation differences.

    Re; 151
    
    Thank you

    Mike, you sparked a curious thought/question in my mind when you
    mentioned polytheism.  Here it is.
    
    Who is really worships many gods?  Mormons or Traditional Christians?
    
    Traditional Christianity has embraced/advocated the worship of:
    
    The Father
    The Son
    The Holy Ghost
    
    Mary
    Saints (at one time there were hundreds of them available for worship)
    Other martyrs
    
    Mormons worship:
    
    The Father (and the The Father only)
    
    (contrary to popular fable, myth or opinion we do not worship Joseph
    Smith, Adam, MIchael, or anyone else.)
    
    By worship I mean:  Pray to
    
    While Jesus and The Holy Ghost are indeed member of the Godhead (and
    Gods in their own right), and while we do revere/acknowledge them, we
    do not worship them.
    
    A curious question, no?
    
    Paul

>    Traditional Christianity has embraced/advocated the worship of:
>    
>    The Father
>    The Son
>    The Holy Ghost
    
    I worship (pray to) the Father in the name of the Son (Matthew 6:6, 
    18:19-20).
    
>    Mary
>    Saints (at one time there were hundreds of them available for worship)
>    Other martyrs
    
    this is Catholicism and shouldn't be confused with orthodox
    Christianity.  You being a former Christian should know that.
    
    hope this answers your question,
    Mike

    Mike
    
    (Chuckle Chuckle)  So you think Catholicism is not "orthodox".  I think
    they would probably say that you Protestants are the "unorthodox" ones. 
    Isn't that what the Reformation and Counter Reformation were all
    about-each trying to define what orthodoxy was (according to their
    interpretations, of course.)
    
    Your discussions on this and other topics are refreshing!  This
    conference was getting dull.  And you discuss, rather than argue!
    
    Paul
    
    PS.  Did you (or anyone else) answer my question? Does God The Father
    have a body because he resides in Christ's (who brought his resurrected
    body with him to heaven)?

>                       -< Orthodoxy-according to whom? >-
    
    probably to me, and a few other fundamentalists ;-)  Seriously, I
    attended a Catholic high school and know enough about them to know we
    don't exactly see eye-to-eye on every essential doctrine.

>    they would probably say that you Protestants are the "unorthodox" ones. 
>    Isn't that what the Reformation and Counter Reformation were all
>    about-each trying to define what orthodoxy was (according to their
>    interpretations, of course.)
    
    could be, but I prefer to follow what God's Word says.  Pardon me if
    this is insulting, but God's Word says nothing of Mary being our
    mediator to God and Purgatory.  I could point out others but that's not
    appropriate here.
    
>    Your discussions on this and other topics are refreshing!  This
>    conference was getting dull.  And you discuss, rather than argue!
    
    Well Paul, thanks (I think)!
    
>    PS.  Did you (or anyone else) answer my question? Does God The Father
>    have a body because he resides in Christ's (who brought his resurrected
>    body with him to heaven)?

    God answered it for you Himself -> John 4:24, Luke 24:39.  
    
    Mike

    This is an excerpt from the Assemblies of God's "Tenets of Faith":
    
2. The one True God
The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent "I AM,"
the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind.  He has further
revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Deut. 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; Matt. 28:19;
Luke 3:22).

   a.) The Adorable Godhead (terms defined) - The terms "Trinity" and "persons"
   as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures, are words in
   harmony with the Scripture whereby we may convey to others our immediate
   understanding of the doctrine of Christ respecting the Being of God, as
   distinguished from "gods many and lords many."  We therefore may speak with
   propriety of the Lord our God, who is one Lord, as a trinity or as one
   Being of three persons, and still be absolutely scriptural (examples:
   Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; John 14:16,17).

   b.) Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead - Christ taught a
   distinction of Persons in the Godhead which He expressed in specific terms
   of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction
   and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible,
   because unexplained (Luke 1:35; 1 Cor. 1:24; Matt. 11:25-27; 28:19;
   2 Cor. 13:14; I John 1:3,4).

   c.) Unity of the one Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Accordingly,
   therefore, there is that in the Son which constitutes Him the Son and not
   the Father; and there is that in the Holy Spirit and not either the Father
   or the Son.  Wherefore, the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten,
   and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son.
   Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of
   unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one (John 1:18;
   15:26; 17:11,21; Zech. 14:9).

   d.) Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead - The Father, the Son and the
   Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation;
   nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation.  The
   Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship.  The
   Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son as to fellowship.
   The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father as to
   authority.  The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding as to
   nature, relationship, cooperation and authority.  Hence, neither Person in
   the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the
   others (John 5:17-30,32,37; John 8:17,18).

   e.) The Title, Lord Jesus Christ - The appellation, "Lord Jesus Christ," is
   a proper name.  It is never applied in the New Testament either to the
   Father or to the Holy Spirit.  It therefore belongs exclusively to the Son
   of God (Romans 1:1-3,7; 2 John 3).

   f.) The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us - The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His
   divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father,
   but as to His human, He is the proper Son of Man.  He is, therefore,
   acknowledged to be both God and man; who, because He is God and man, is
   "Immanuel," God with us (Matt. 1:23; 1 John 4:2,10,14; Rev. 1:13,17).

   g.) The Title, Son of God - Since the name "Immanuel" embraces both God and
   man in the one Person, our Lord Jesus Christ, it follows that the title Son
   of God describes His proper deity, and the title Son of Man, His proper
   humanity.  Therefore, the title Son of God belongs to the order of eternity,
   and the title Son of Man to the order of time (Matt. 1:21-23; 2 John 3;
   1 John 3:8; Heb. 7:3; 1:1-13).

   h.) Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ - Wherefore, it is a
   transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived
   the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation or because
   of His relation to the economy or redemption.  Therefore, to deny that the
   Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal
   Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a
   denial of the Father and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that
   Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (2 John 9; John 1:1,2,14,18,29,49;
   1 John 2:22,23; 4:1-5; Heb. 12:2).

   i.) Exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord - The Son of God, our Lord Jesus
   Christ, having by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
   the Majesty on high, angels and principalities and powers having been made
   subject unto Him.  And having been made both Lord and Christ, He sent the
   Holy Spirit that we, in the name of Jesus, might bow out knees and confess
   that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father until the end,
   when the Son shall become subject to the Father that God may be all in all
   (Heb. 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22; Acts 2:32-36; Romans 14:11; 1 Cor 15:24-28).

   j.) Equal Honor to the Father and to the Son - Wherefore, since the Father
   has delivered all judgment unto the Son, it is not only the express duty of
   all in heaven and on earth to bow the knee, but it is an unspeakable joy in
   the Holy Spirit to ascribe unto the Son all the attributes of Deity, and to
   give Him all the honor and the glory contained in all the names and titles
   of the Godhead, except those which express relationship (see paragraphs b,
   c, and d), and thus honor the Son even as we honor the Father (John 5:22,
   23; 1 Peter 1:8; Rev. 5:6-14; Phil. 2:8, 9; Rev. 7:9,10; 4:8-11).

3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.  The Scriptures declare:
   a.) His virgin birth (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:31, 35).
   b.) His sinless life (Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22).
   c.) His miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38).
   d.) His substitutionary work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21).
   e.) His bodily resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:6; Luke 24:39;
       1 Cor. 15:4).
   f.) His exaltations to the right hand of God (Acts 1:9, 11; 2:33;
       Phil. 2:9-11; Hebrews 1-3).

    This is the *complete* "Statement of Faith" from the Calvary Chapel's. 
    Short and sweet, just like I like it ;-)
    
Statement of Faith
------------------
1) We believe The Bible is the Word of God inspired and without error in it's
original manuscripts.  It is our only source of authority in matters of faith,
conduct, and truth.

2) We believe there is one eternal God, personal and knowable who manifests
Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit.  He is worthy of our worship, confidence, and obedience.

3) We believe God the Son willingly took on the body of a man, was virgin-born,
became our sinless substitute, shed His blood on the cross to completely pay
for the atonement of our sins.  We believe He died, was buried, resurrected in a
literal body, ascended into Heaven, and is presently our advocate and only High
Priest.

4) We believe the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict the lost, place and
seal the believer in the Body of Christ, and make real and productive the things
of Christ in the believer's life.  We do not believe that any special gift is a
necessary evidence of salvation or of being filled with the Spirit.

5) We believe every person is born with a sin nature, is spiritually dead and
cannot please God until Christ gives him life.  We believe salvation from sin,
death, and hell is by God's grace.  It must be received by faith apart from any
human performance or merit.  It is a free gift of God to one who personally
places his confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the
Cross.  We believe a truly born again person is eternally secure.

6) We believe that all believers should assemble in local churches for mutual
edification, encouragement, evangelism, service and worship.  Within our
fellowship, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, we share our love of
Christ through participation in the signs of the New Covenant: The Lord's Supper
and Baptism by immersion in water.

7) We believe the Lord Jesus Christ will personally return for His own before
the tribulation and before the millennium.

                      ARTICLE I:    THE TRIUNE GOD

   We believe in one eternally existent, infinite God, Sovereign of
   the Universe; that he only is God, creative and administrative,
   holy in nature, attributes, and purpose; that He, as God, is Triune 
   in essential being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


                      ARTICLE II: JESUS CHRIST

   We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God-
   head; that he was eternally one with the Father; that he became
   incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so
   that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead
   and manhood, are thus united in one person very God and very man,
   the God-man.

   We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly
   arose from the dead and took again his body, together with all
   things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith
   He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for
   us.

                    ARTICLE III: THE HOLY SPIRIT

   We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune God-
   head, that he is ever present and efficiently active in and with
   the Church of Christ, convincing the world of sin, regenerating
   those who repent and believe, sanctifying believers, and guid-
   ing into all truth as it is in Jesus.

Athanasian Creed, 4th Century
-----------------------------
Quicunque Vult

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the Catholic Faith.

Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:  That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity,

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one
uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
Person by himself to be both God and Lord,

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods,
or three Lords.

The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one
Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less
than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity
in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe
rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of
the substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God, and perfect Man:  of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father,
as touching his Manhood.

Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, So God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give
account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.

    Thanks, Mike, for entering all these creeds which explain the Triune
    God.  I have read and re-read many of them before.
    
    They are still as incomprehensible to me as is the God (Trinity in
    Unity) they try to explain. I am not trying to belittle, but this
    concept was what drove me out of Catholicism and out of Chrisitianity,
    until I found the Restored Gospel.  What I mean is:
    
    How can a God The Father beget himself into another person (Jesus) and
    the do it again (The Holy Ghost)? 
    How can The Father beget something called His Son, and in reality it is
    himself (the Father)?
    How can God the Father proclaim to be a spirit, yet reside in Christ's
    resurrected body, and still say he does not have a body?
    How can a God pray to himself and intercede to himself on our behalf?
    
    My petty mind cannot find any logic in this Triune God Concept.  When I
    read the creeds you posted, I walk away even more dismayed at trying to
    understand such a being as therein described.
    
    I know we disagree on this topic.  But, then again, Christianity has
    1600 variations due to interpretations.  Oh, well.
    
    Paul 

>    Thanks, Mike, for entering all these creeds which explain the Triune
>    God.  I have read and re-read many of them before.
    
    no problem.  I figured at least it would give LDS members a perspective
    of how some Christian denominations view the Godhead.
    
>    How can a God The Father beget himself into another person (Jesus) and
>    the do it again (The Holy Ghost)? 
>    How can The Father beget something called His Son, and in reality it is
>    himself (the Father)?
>    How can God the Father proclaim to be a spirit, yet reside in Christ's
>    resurrected body, and still say he does not have a body?
>    How can a God pray to himself and intercede to himself on our behalf?
    
    This is probably why I prefer the AG presentation of the Trinity (of
    the 4 I posted, and I'm not an AG person).  They address some of the 
    inter-relationships of the Trinity and provide Biblical references for 
    them.  The bottomline to all your questions is the omniscience, 
    omnipresence, and omnipotence of God.
    
>    I know we disagree on this topic.  But, then again, Christianity has
>    1600 variations due to interpretations.  Oh, well.
    
    Well Paul, we'll ultimately agree to disagree on this subject, but I
    don't see where the 4 creeds posted disagree on the Trinity.  Though
    orthodox Christian denominations disagree on minor non-essential
    doctrines, they all agree on the major essential doctrines (Godhead, 
    requirements for Salvation, Infallibility of the Bible, the Deity of Jesus 
    Christ, and the eschatological doctrines).
    
    On a potential rathole, I've already provided information that the Bible 
    has purity and integrity.  What you may or may not realize is that Book
    of Mormon has experienced 3,914 changes in it since the first edition
    in 1830.  I also know of at least 16 LDS doctrines that aren't
    addressed in the BoM.  If this book contains the fullness of the gospel
    of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I'd be very concerned.
    
    later,
    Mike

    Pardon my intruding ...  I was a bit startled by the claim that
    Catholicism was not an orthodox form of Christianity.  I can only
    assume that this is some sort of typo.  TAHD has several definitions,
    one of which is "of or relating to Christian churches derived from the
    church of the Byzantine Empire."  Another definition refers to Judaism
    and Hebrew law.  The more common usage refers to traditional or
    established beliefs.  With the exception of Judaism, the Catholic
    church does fit the definitions for an orthodox Christian religion,
    according to what I read in TAHD.
    
    If not a typo, then I suppose that what was meant was that the Catholic
    chruch does not fit the AUTHOR'S definition of traditional or
    established beliefs.  In that case, it is reasonable to suppose that
    the only religion that fits the definition must be that of the author.
    And, in that case the assertion that this or that religion is not
    orthodox is rather moot because it strays from the generally accepted
    definition of the word.  That is to say, the author is effectively 
    redefining the word and, I assume, is hopeful that others will pick up
    on the definition.  No?
    
    Steve

>    On a potential rathole, I've already provided information that the Bible 
>    has purity and integrity.  What you may or may not realize is that Book
>    of Mormon has experienced 3,914 changes in it since the first edition
>    in 1830.

     How many are there, not related to punctuation, nor to mistakes in the
     first printed edition that were not in the original manuscript copy ?

     Frankly, while you don't have to agree with the Book of Mormon, I hope
     you will come to drop this type of intellectually misleading and dishonest
     argument.  How much information can you provide about the details behind
     the above statement ?  I am more than willing to acknowledge that I think
     the Bible is very highly in line with what the oldest extant documents
     proclaim; nevertheless, I would be willing to state that the current
     edition of the Book of Mormon is much more accurately correlated to its
     oldest extant texts as compared to most editions of the Bible.

>   <<< Note 97.155 by FRETZ::HEISER "can you see who I am thru those eyes" >>>
>                          -< it's all in God's Word >-
>    
>    That's not correct.  Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim."  Hebrew
>    is unique in its noun forms.  Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
>    *always* knew God was triune in nature.
>    

     Your kidding about this statement about the Jews, aren't you ?
     What is the evidence you are giving of this, other than a current
     definition of the word Elohim ?

    re: .169
    
    More ...  many of those "corrections" have been shown to be of the
    writing style.  The original translation more closely followed the
    writing style of the times which, as I recall, has been the subject of
    credible research.  That is to say, the original translation more
    closely followed the way things were written then.  This is similar to
    the problem you get when just trying to translate from one language to
    another.  Sometimes the literal translation is less accurate than a
    translation of meaning or style.  I encountered this upon becoming
    fluent in a second language.
    
    Steve  

Note 97.168                        The Godhead                        168 of 171
NACAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992," 21 lines  24-MAR-1994 11:05

>    Pardon my intruding ...  I was a bit startled by the claim that
>    Catholicism was not an orthodox form of Christianity.  I can only
>    assume that this is some sort of typo.  TAHD has several definitions,

I was mainly speaking from personal experience.  If you compare them to the
several Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans,
Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, etc. - who pretty much agree on doctrine), the
Catholic church is quite different.

Re: tangent on BoM

I'll address this later in the proper topic.

Note 97.170                        The Godhead                        170 of 171
MIMS::ROLLINS_R                                      11 lines  24-MAR-1994 12:54

>     Your kidding about this statement about the Jews, aren't you ?
>     What is the evidence you are giving of this, other than a current
>     definition of the word Elohim ?

Nope.  Try researching some of the commentaries by ancient Hebrew sages such as
Nahmanides.  He is also known as Moses ben Nahman (or Ramban) and lived
1194-1270 AD in Spain and Israel.

    re: .172
    
    Similarly, if a Catholic were to compare most Protestant religions to
    Catholicism, who do you think the Catholic would call orthodox and
    unorthodox?  The funny thing is, even among Catholics there is the 
    orthodox and unorthodox.  And, there are orthodox Jews and unorthodox.
    But, I digress.  I've just never encountered calling all catholics
    unorthodox.  Also, if these other Protestant religions are so similar,
    why are they divided?  And, being divided, isn't their claim to
    orthodoxy a bit of a stretch?
    
    Steve

    >    unorthodox.  Also, if these other Protestant religions are so similar,
>    why are they divided?  And, being divided, isn't their claim to
>    orthodoxy a bit of a stretch?

    I'll give you an example that's probably fairly well known.  The
    charismatic denominations (i.e., Assemblies of God) believe the 
    manifestations of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues 
    (I Corinthians 12) are still for today and practice them as well.  The 
    Baptists do not believe this, nor do they practice it.  Most Protestant
    denominations view this as an minor doctrine.  These particular
    denominations don't agree on this issue so that's why they are
    separate.  

    So does this make both or either of them unorthodox?  I don't believe
    so.  They both strongly adhere to the critical and essential doctrines
    of Christianity:

    1. Infallibility and authority of the Holy Bible.
    2. The Godhead and characteristics of it.
    3. Jesus Christ's full atonement for all sin.
    4. Requirements for salvation.
    5. The ministry of the Holy Spirit to convict the lost, and seal the
       believer upon salvation.
    6. Man's sinful nature and the need for a Savior.
    7. Second Coming of Christ
    8. Missions and the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Mike

>    That's not correct.  Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim."  Hebrew
>    is unique in its noun forms.  Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
>    *always* knew God was triune in nature.
>    

    Most definitely not so.  The construction is common among slavic 
    languages - where the plural form of address is indicative of
    respect.

    I have been giving more thought to this 3-in-in God and have come up
    with the following.  
    
    BELIEFS OF "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS"
    
    1. There are 3 Gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
    2. These 3 are all one in person, not separate beings.
    3. The Father is a spirit, and is omnipresent, meaning everywhere at
       the same time.
    4. The Son, the Messian, came to earth as a man, and at his death was
       resurrected, taking that body to heaven.
    5. The Holy Ghost is  a spirit also.
    
    However, Christ's resurrected body presents a problem for the Triune
    belief.  Because of the body and the 3-in-1 being.
    
    1. The Father, although a spirit, must reside in Christ's resurrected
       body.
    2. The Father, then, can not be omnipresent.
    3. And the Holy Spirit can't be omnipresent either because he is inside
       Christ's resurrected body.
    
    Therefore:
    
    1. Either this Triune (3 persons in one being) Doctrine is not correct.
    2. Or Christ did not take his resurrected body to heaven (which would
       make the Bible wrong because it says he did.)
    
    Which is it?  What a dilemma!
    
    The LDS doctrine presents 2 points that help solve this dilemma.
    
    1. The Godhead, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are 3
       separate persons, beings.
    
    2. The Son has a body, as does the Father.
    
    Now many may not want to believe point 2, but point 1 allows, Christ to
    have his resurrected body, the Father to be a spirit and omnipresent
    and the Holy Ghost to be a spirit also.  It would seem obvious to me
    that the separateness of the 3 Gods would be an attractive doctrine to
    be believed.
    
    Does any of this make sense to non-LDS readers?  
    
    Paul
    Paul
    
    
    

    re: .174
    
    It's pretty clear to me, then, that the definition of "orthodox" being
    used here is rather arbitrary.  *None* of the criteria listed here for
    what is orthodox and what is not are listed in either of my
    dictionaries nor are they obvious to the most casual observer. 
    My dictionaries mention Christian churches, including catholicism, 
    in defining orthodoxy.  But, none of my dictionaries explicitly mention
    any of the Christian religions or beliefs cited in .174.  
    
    What, then, is the source for your definition of the word "orthodox?" 
    And, the obvious follow on is by what authority can you claim that the 
    Catholic church is unorthodox?  

    I keep coming back to the definition of "orthodox."  By what authority
    would anyone deny that Catholicism is Christian?  Who would deny that 
    Catholicism adheres to traditional or established Christian beliefs?  

    Steve

>    1. There are 3 Gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
>    2. These 3 are all one in person, not separate beings.
    
    Paul, these are sort of backwards.  Traditional Christianity says that
    there is 1 God and He manifests Himself in 3 persons.  This error
    negates the rest of your reply.
    
    Mike

>    I keep coming back to the definition of "orthodox."  By what authority
>    would anyone deny that Catholicism is Christian?  Who would deny that 
>    Catholicism adheres to traditional or established Christian beliefs?  

    Steve, I'm pretty sure I've seen you noting in CHRISTIAN from
    time-to-time.  Did you ever notice differences in there between
    Christians and Catholics?  
    
    As for authority, there's God's Word (Bible).  For instance, Catholics 
    believe that they will go to Purgatory when they die (which is never 
    mentioned in the Bible) and that the prayers of fellow Catholics who are 
    still alive will pray them into heaven (i.e., no assurance of salvation). 
    The Bible says, and traditional Christians believe, that Christ paid the 
    full atonement for all sins and that we have assurance of salvation.
    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29). 
    
    This is a major difference in the doctrine of salvation.
    
    Mike

    re: .179
    
    I have noted on CHRISTIAN notes, but it has been quite a while.
    I dropped it when it was made clear to me that I was not a welcome
    participant as I did not share belief in the same dogma defined by the
    conference originators.  According to my dictionary, Catholics are
    Christian since they profess belief in Christianity.  The dictionary is
    based on the collective opinion of scholars and society.  That's where
    the authority for the dictionary comes from.  Ask a Catholic if he or
    she is Christian and the answer will probably be "yes."  Now, a
    minority claims that Catholics are not Christian.  Where does the
    authority for this assertion come from?  The Catholics have and use the
    Bible.  They have been around for a very long time.  They can trace
    their roots directly back to the Apostles.  From the world's point of
    view, Catholicism is pretty much the epitome of orthodox Christianity.
    
    Steve 

>    the authority for the dictionary comes from.  Ask a Catholic if he or
>    she is Christian and the answer will probably be "yes."  Now, a
    
    You get the same answer from many Americans who've never set foot in a
    church in their life and have never read or owned a Bible.
    
>    minority claims that Catholics are not Christian.  Where does the
>    authority for this assertion come from?  The Catholics have and use the
    
    The Word of God (the Bible).  Many faiths use the Bible, not all of
    them hold to what it teaches.
    
    Mike

re: .181
        
>    You get the same answer from many Americans who've never set foot in a
>    church in their life and have never read or owned a Bible.
 
Why can't a person that cannot go to a church, cannot read or who does not 
own a Bible be Christian?  By what authority can the opinions of such 
persons be dismissed?  More, we're still talking about orthodox 
Christianity, aren't we?  These are personally defined attributes for the 
word "orthodox" that appear to have little or nothing to do with the 
generally accepted definition of the word.  By what authority does the 
minority declare the majority of Christians to be unorthodox?
   
>    The Word of God (the Bible).  Many faiths use the Bible, not all of
>    them hold to what it teaches.

Which faiths can you name that use the Bible and profess that they do not hold 
to what it teaches?  Off hand, I can't think of any.  So, what is it in your 
faith (besides a self-proclaimed correctness) that authorizes such condemnation 
and disqualification of the other faiths?

Steve

    Mike
    
    Even if Traditional says "There is 1 God who manifests himself in 3
    ways", my question is not negated, but still valid.  One of these
    "manifestations" had a body, which was returned to heaven, in which
    this "one God" says he is resides.  Thus, the One God has to have a
    body. 
    
    Or.  Could it be that this One God is something else (New Agers
    sometimes use the word "The Force"?  And he manifests himself in
    multiple ways, such as Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, The Father, etc?
    (I personally don't believe this.) 
    
    My question still remains.  And so far it remains unanswered. The
    Triune God has a body.  It is Christ's. Because they are one, he
    resides/exists in it.
    
    I don't see how you can get around Christ's resurrected body when you
    believe in the 3-in-1 God. See my point?
                                            
    Paul

>Why can't a person that cannot go to a church, cannot read or who does not 
>own a Bible be Christian?  By what authority can the opinions of such 
    
    Don't you have to know something about the gospel to accept Jesus
    Christ as your Savior and accept His atonement for sin?
    
>Which faiths can you name that use the Bible and profess that they do not hold 
>to what it teaches?  Off hand, I can't think of any.  So, what is it in your 
>faith (besides a self-proclaimed correctness) that authorizes such condemnation 
>and disqualification of the other faiths?
    
    How about the Jehovah's Witnesses?  Worldwide Church of God
    (Armstrongism)?  My faith and/or authority has nothing to do with it. 
    The Word of God is the authority.  If you contradict God's Word, the
    red flags should go up.
    
 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
 doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
 works."
    
    II Timothy 3:16-17

>    My question still remains.  And so far it remains unanswered. The
>    Triune God has a body.  It is Christ's. Because they are one, he
>    resides/exists in it.
>    
>    I don't see how you can get around Christ's resurrected body when you
>    believe in the 3-in-1 God. See my point?
                                            
    Paul, I'm trying to.  I don't think you can put God in a box either
    though.  What about when God physically appeared to Moses in Exodus and
    showed Moses His body?  To me that presents another problem with your
    question since you're only giving Christ a body.  Did God show Moses a
    physical body or a spiritual one?  What does a spiritual body look
    like? (somewhat described in I Corinthians 15)  Did Moses see a 
    Christophene {sp? - Greek term for an OT appearance of Jesus Christ} as 
    the King did when he put Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery 
    furnace?  
    
    Mike

re: .184

>    Don't you have to know something about the gospel to accept Jesus
>    Christ as your Savior and accept His atonement for sin?

Yes.  But, what of the poor, the imprisoned and the illiterate?  Are they to
be forever damned simply because of the circumstances they were born into?  
I believe Christ was sent to all and not just the privileged.
    
>    How about the Jehovah's Witnesses?  Worldwide Church of God
>    (Armstrongism)?  My faith and/or authority has nothing to do with it. 
>    The Word of God is the authority.  If you contradict God's Word, the
>    red flags should go up.
    
Last I checked, the Jehovah's Witnesses were preaching from the Bible and 
claiming to live by it.  As for the Worldwide Church of God, all I know of
them is what I have read in Reader's Digest (assuming I have the name right).  
From that limited exposure, it would appear that, hypocritical as they seem 
to be to many of us, they still claim to hold to what the Bible teaches.  

I have met preachers of other faiths who claim to hold to the Bible -- 
yet dismiss all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for various reasons.  I 
have NOT YET MET ANY PROSELYTE that called him/herself Christian that did 
not claim to believe the Bible, to follow its teachings and that did not 
claim to have the "right" interpretation of the Bible (or as correct as 
possible).  But, they can't all be right because they often contradict 
each other.

It is SO EASY to use the scriptures to differing and conflicting ends.
Anything from condemning each other to fighting over points of doctrine
to shunning those in need and on and on.

This is the reason I get so riled up about condemning Catholics or any other
group of sincere people who would call themselves Christian.  I am not 
Catholic, but I have marched with them to fight abortion.  I am not Muslim,
but I have prayed for a friend and shared spiritual moments in helping
a Muslim friend to stay morally clean.  I am not Pentacostal, but my 
grandmother is and I have met few in any faith with the trust in God and
love for Him that she has.  She is an exemplary person in my eyes.
I am not atheist, but have met atheists who still adhere to the principles
of morality and decency taught in the Bible better than many Christians.

I believe in God.  I believe His Word is found in the Bible.  Frankly,
I don't really care if others think I'm Christian.  Truth be known, it's
really between me and God as to whether or not I really am a Christian.
I grant that the same holds true for every other person that professes
to take on Christ's name.

Steve

>Yes.  But, what of the poor, the imprisoned and the illiterate?  Are they to
>be forever damned simply because of the circumstances they were born into?  
>I believe Christ was sent to all and not just the privileged.
    
    I believe that as well.  God is for every man.
    
>Last I checked, the Jehovah's Witnesses were preaching from the Bible and 
>claiming to live by it.  As for the Worldwide Church of God, all I know of
>them is what I have read in Reader's Digest (assuming I have the name right).  
>From that limited exposure, it would appear that, hypocritical as they seem 
>to be to many of us, they still claim to hold to what the Bible teaches.  
    >
>have NOT YET MET ANY PROSELYTE that called him/herself Christian that did 
>not claim to believe the Bible, to follow its teachings and that did not 
>claim to have the "right" interpretation of the Bible (or as correct as 
>possible).  But, they can't all be right because they often contradict 
>each other.
    
    The LDS Church also holds fast to much of the Bible, yet you do not
    believe that all churches are Christian churches in the same manner and
    sense that the LDS is.  In fact, isn't it true that your church
    actually teaches that Christian church's creeds are "an abomination in
    the sight of God," and it's professed members are all doctrinally
    corrupt?  Do you or do you not believe this to be true?

>I have met preachers of other faiths who claim to hold to the Bible -- 
>yet dismiss all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for various reasons.  I 
    
    Obviously this is an error on their part.
    
>It is SO EASY to use the scriptures to differing and conflicting ends.
>Anything from condemning each other to fighting over points of doctrine
>to shunning those in need and on and on.
    
    That's why people must not add/subtract to/from God's Word.  That's how
    these things happen and new denominations are formed.

>This is the reason I get so riled up about condemning Catholics or any other
>group of sincere people who would call themselves Christian.  I am not 
>Catholic, but I have marched with them to fight abortion.  I am not Muslim,
>but I have prayed for a friend and shared spiritual moments in helping
>a Muslim friend to stay morally clean.  I am not Pentacostal, but my 
>grandmother is and I have met few in any faith with the trust in God and
>love for Him that she has.  She is an exemplary person in my eyes.
>I am not atheist, but have met atheists who still adhere to the principles
>of morality and decency taught in the Bible better than many Christians.
    
    I'm also from a Pentecostal background, but when you get right down to
    it, your denomination and your works in morality (or anything else)
    will not save you (Ephesians 2:4-9).

>I believe in God.  I believe His Word is found in the Bible.  Frankly,
>I don't really care if others think I'm Christian.  Truth be known, it's
>really between me and God as to whether or not I really am a Christian.
>I grant that the same holds true for every other person that professes
>to take on Christ's name.

    Steve, you are absolutely correct in stating that it's a personal decision. 
    Nobody can make it for you, and nobody can save you.  Only God can.
    
    later,
    Mike

>    The LDS Church also holds fast to much of the Bible, yet you do not
>    believe that all churches are Christian churches in the same manner and
>    sense that the LDS is.  

	That is correct, because the LDS church is the *restored* gospel 
	after the great night of apostasy, and has the authority from Christ 
	to act in his name.

>    In fact, isn't it true that your church
>    actually teaches that Christian church's creeds are "an abomination in
>    the sight of God," and it's professed members are all doctrinally
>    corrupt?  Do you or do you not believe this to be true?

	Yes to the first and no to the second.  The doctrine is not ALL 
	doctrinally corrupt, but I have never seen so much (IMHO) twisting
	of a lot of scripture to make it "right" based upon the incorrect 
	definitions of small parts.  It is like a tiny part is not quite
	understood so a great deal of doctrine comes from it which hides or
	makes a lot of other parts misunderstood.

	I think it is an abomination to teach that to just *profess* faith or
	belief in Christ will get one a place on the right hand of God.
	Which leads right to the next subject...

>    ..., your denomination and your works in morality (or anything else)
>    will not save you (Ephesians 2:4-9).

	Here are the important verses from Ephesians, Chapter 2 :

	     5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together
	       with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
	     8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that  not  of
	       yourselves: it is the gift of God;
	     9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

	Taken out of the context of Paul's original dissertation, they are an
	abomination and corruption of God's word :

	Matthew, Chapter 8
	     20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
	     21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
	        into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
	        Father which is in heaven.
	     22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we  not
	        prophesied  in  thy  name? and in thy name have cast out de-
	        vils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
	     23 And then will I profess unto  them,  I  never  knew  you;
	        depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

	Luke, Chapter 6
	     46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and  do  not  the  things
	        which I say?

	And this is not taking into account the fine discourse the Lord gave
	in Matthew 24:31-46.  There are all sorts of other examples in the 
	Bible that it takes more than just professing belief (James comes to
	mind with "Faith without works is dead").  The Law of Moses, which
	the Jews thought could get them to heaven, was nothing more than a
	schoolmaster that would allow them to look forward to Christ.  It's
	heavy yoke burdened down those who followed it, and Christ came to
	say that his yoke was light and would relieve much of the burden.  In
	fact, if one looks at the great two commandments (love God and love
	neighbor) all the Ten Commandments can be placed in one of those two
	categories.

	What it all boils down to is this; 

	after having faith in Jesus Christ and being baptized in his name 
	unto repentance for a remission of our sins, we must work to comply 
	with the commandments of God in doing good works (bearing good fruit) 
	of a charitable nature (1 Cor 13), and no matter how well we do -- 
	it is still by the grace of God that we are saved.

>	That is correct, because the LDS church is the *restored* gospel 
>	after the great night of apostasy, and has the authority from Christ 
>	to act in his name.
    
    Just out of curiousity, how do you know the LDS authority is direct
    from Christ?  The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church 
    would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul warned that 
    any gospel apart from the Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ which he 
    preached was not true (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:22-24).  Paul also wrote that 
    the Body of Christ consists of all believers in Christ (I Corinthians
    12:12-13,27).
    
>	I think it is an abomination to teach that to just *profess* faith or
>	belief in Christ will get one a place on the right hand of God.
>	Which leads right to the next subject...
    
    We agree in a sense.  Biblical salvation comes by grace through
    personal faith in Christ as Savior disregarding all works 
    (Ephesians 2:4-9, supports II Nephi 10:24, 25:23).  It simply consists 
    of receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 1:12-13, I John 5:9-13).
    The Bible teaches that our righteousness is found in Christ 
    (II Corinthians 5:21), and that we are saved through grace, love and 
    mercy of God (Ephesians 2:4-9; John 3:16).  Our acceptance by God is based 
    solely on our accepting His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).  
    
    The biblical Gospel includes Christ dying for sins, his burial, and his
    verified resurrection from the dead (I Corinthians 15:1-8).  The Gospel
    does not include laws (Romans 3:19-24), or ordinances (Colossians 2:16-17),
    or works (Titus 3:5-7).
    
    It's true that faith without works is dead.  If you are truly convinced
    of Christ's propitiation, the joy He brings to your heart will make you
    want to share His gospel with everyone.  But like it says in Ephesians
    2:8-9 and II Nephi 10:24, 25:23, there's nothing we could do to earn
    our way into heaven.  Christ already paid that debt.
    
    I agree with you in the rest of you reply in regards to the Law.
    
>	after having faith in Jesus Christ and being baptized in his name 
>	unto repentance for a remission of our sins, we must work to comply 
>	with the commandments of God in doing good works (bearing good fruit) 
    
    Romans 13:8-10 tells us what fulfills the Law under the new covenant of
    Christ.  Galatians 5:22 tells us what fruit we should bear once we are
    truly saved and the Holy Spirit dwells in our lives.
    
>	of a charitable nature (1 Cor 13), and no matter how well we do -- 
>	it is still by the grace of God that we are saved.
    
    Agreed!
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I feel someone needs to say that it truly is pleasant discussing
    these topics with you.  When someone brought up the old "Faith vs.
    Works" argument, I thought "Oh, boy, not this rathole again!"  Seeing
    your very reasonable ideas (and that indeed your reasoning is compatible
    with many LDS views) and the way that you present them without a lot of 
    "heat" make conversation with you enjoyable.
    
    Thanks for being part of these discussions.  By the way, don't confuse
    my questions as confontative.  I love to question and propose
    hypotheses.
    
    Regards,
    
    Paul
     

>    Just out of curiosity, how do you know the LDS authority is direct
>    from Christ?  

	Christ is the head of his church.  He established it when he was 
	here upon the earth, and gave the leadership authority to the first 
	presidency of Peter, James, and John.  This original first presidency 
	returned (in the early 1800's) and bestowed that authority upon Joseph
	Smith and Oliver Cowdery (see also D&C 27:12-14), and then they 
	through the twelve apostles and three witnesses.  Each priesthood 
	member of this church today can trace their priesthood authority 
	through them to Jesus Christ.

>   The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church 
>   would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), ...

	My impression of that section of the Bible is different, and I don't
	see anything talking about the true church much less it never leaving.

	     18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,  and  upon
		this  rock  I  will  build  my church; and the gates of hell
	        shall not prevail against it.

	In reading the whole section of Matthew 16:13-20, I see where Peter 
	learned who Jesus really was, and then being commended upon learning
	it through prayer and the manifestation of the truth through the Holy
	Ghost, i.e. not by "flesh and blood."  I believe that Christ's church
	is led, guided, and directed by the rock of revelation and not the 
	personage of Peter.  I also believe that the Holy Ghost is the only 
	thing the devil can not duplicate, and that is why revelation will
	prevail against the gates of hell.

>    We agree in a sense.  Biblical salvation comes by grace through
>    personal faith in Christ as Savior disregarding all works 
>    (Ephesians 2:4-9, supports II Nephi 10:24, 25:23).  

	10:24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will
	      of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and 
	      remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in 
	      and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

	25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and 
	      also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to
	      God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, 
	      after all we can do.
	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	I do not, in any way, shape, or form, believe that II Nephi 10:24 
	and/or II Nephi 25:23 support the hypothesis of the secular definition
	of Ephesians 2:4-9!  

	Oh, the words about saved by grace are there, but then let us not 
	forgot to read the last part in 25:33.  To be saved by grace requires
	an effort, contrary to popular belief.  I see this in 10:24 where we
	must "reconcile yourselves to the will of God".

	This means, at least to me, that we follow the commandments of God, 
	AND DO THE WORKS (nasty word!) ASSOCIATED BY DOING SO, instead of 
	doing the works of following the devil.  I think there is a great 
	difference in doing "works of righteousness" and the "works of the 
	Law of Moses".  This is, after all, what I think Paul was referring 
	to when he made the statement.  There is so much more in the Bible 
	about how Paul had to fight the common Jewish misconception of being 
	saved by works of the law [of Moses].

	I think it is a great tragedy to take all the available scripture in
	the Bible (some of which I have previously pointed out), and *ignore* 
	the fact that we must do SOMETHING other than profess a belief.

	Yes, we must accept Christ and believe that he has the power to save
	us and bring about our salvation, but it is a COVENANT that we enter
	into and not a situation where we can just lean back and let Christ do
	everything for us.  This later attitude is most prevalent among those
	who profess the "saved by grace through professing Jesus Christ" and
	then doing nothing more.  If we do not do the works of Christ, then we
	are doing the works of the devil.

	The effects of the atonement are given only to those who *repent* and
	forsake their sins.  Again, this is doing something.  Those who think
	they can wander the earth doing anything they want after they have
	*professed* their belief and acceptance of Christ will be sadly 
	mistaken when their time comes to meet their maker.  To fully live in
	the gospel of Jesus Christ, the WHOLE amount of scripture God has given
	us must be taken into account.  Even if a person will only accept the
	Bible as the word of God, it is still pretty much all there.  Most of
	it comes from Paul, and ever Peter said Paul was hard to understand.

	Just by taking and hanging onto one or two verses out of a whole book 
	will NOT lead to eternal salvation.  All of it must be taken and put 
	into context, and then a clear picture of the *whole* process will 
	come to mind.  Even after all that, it must still be confirmed in the 
	same way Peter came to know his savior.
	
	Regards,
	Charles

    It's been a while since I got in here.  Only point I'd like to add is
    that I regard catholics, protestants and others who take upon
    themselves the name of Christ as Christian.  That does not mean that I
    claim they will be "saved" or that I agree with their dogmas.  I leave 
    it to God to judge individuals.
    
    Steve  

�Note 97.190                        The Godhead                        190 of 192
�AKOCOA::RONDINA                                      17 lines   1-APR-1994 06:54
�                -< Finally - discussion without confrontation >-
�    I feel someone needs to say that it truly is pleasant discussing
�    these topics with you.  When someone brought up the old "Faith vs.
�    Works" argument, I thought "Oh, boy, not this rathole again!"  Seeing
�    your very reasonable ideas (and that indeed your reasoning is compatible
�    with many LDS views) and the way that you present them without a lot of 
�    "heat" make conversation with you enjoyable.
�    
�    Thanks for being part of these discussions.  By the way, don't confuse
�    my questions as confontative.  I love to question and propose
�    hypotheses.
    
    Paul, thanks again.  Admittedly, it hasn't always been this way, but God is
    still working on me as I continue to strive to mature in the Lord.  I hope
    other noters don't perceive my participation as malicious.
     
�Note 97.191                        The Godhead                        191 of 192
�BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           94 lines   1-APR-1994 11:54
�                  -< I guess all a matter of interpretation. >-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�>    Just out of curiosity, how do you know the LDS authority is direct
�>    from Christ?  
�
�	Christ is the head of his church.  He established it when he was 
�	here upon the earth, and gave the leadership authority to the first 
�	presidency of Peter, James, and John.  This original first presidency 
�	returned (in the early 1800's) and bestowed that authority upon Joseph
�	Smith and Oliver Cowdery (see also D&C 27:12-14), and then they 
�	through the twelve apostles and three witnesses.  Each priesthood 
�	member of this church today can trace their priesthood authority 
�	through them to Jesus Christ.

Who is the original first presidency that returned in the 1800's to give JS the
authority?

�>   The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church 
�>   would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), ...
�
�	My impression of that section of the Bible is different, and I don't
�	see anything talking about the true church much less it never leaving.
�
�	     18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,  and  upon
�		this  rock  I  will  build  my church; and the gates of hell
�	        shall not prevail against it.

Well, as I understand it, JS was given the restored, true gospel in the 1800's.
This seems to imply that the original gospel was wrong or had disappeared
sometime before then.  If this is the case, doesn't that mean that Hell
prevailed against the Christ's Church?  I've supplied Biblical references saying
that the body of believers is the Church Jesus spoke of.  Did Hell prevail over
the believers?

>	it through prayer and the manifestation of the truth through the Holy
>	Ghost, i.e. not by "flesh and blood."  I believe that Christ's church
>	is led, guided, and directed by the rock of revelation and not the 
>	personage of Peter.  I also believe that the Holy Ghost is the only 
>	thing the devil can not duplicate, and that is why revelation will
>	prevail against the gates of hell.

Agreed.  That's why I don't understand what happened to the Church (i.e., body
of believers) that required a new gospel.  This seems to also imply that the
first one was a mistake and I know God doesn't make mistakes.

�>    We agree in a sense.  Biblical salvation comes by grace through
�>    personal faith in Christ as Savior disregarding all works 
�>    (Ephesians 2:4-9, supports II Nephi 10:24, 25:23).  
�
�	10:24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will
�	      of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and 
�	      remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in 
�	      and through the grace of God that ye are saved.
�
�	25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and 
�	      also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to
�	      God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, 
�	      after all we can do.
�	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
�
�	I do not, in any way, shape, or form, believe that II Nephi 10:24 
�	and/or II Nephi 25:23 support the hypothesis of the secular definition
�	of Ephesians 2:4-9!

Maybe so.  Couldn't also be said that phrase applies to the works in the first
part of that verse?  If so, then it would agree with Ephesians 2:4-9.  At least
that's how I view it.  No matter how much we witness to our children and
bretheren, it is still only the grace of God that saves us.

�	Oh, the words about saved by grace are there, but then let us not 
�	forgot to read the last part in 25:33.  To be saved by grace requires
�	an effort, contrary to popular belief.  I see this in 10:24 where we
�	must "reconcile yourselves to the will of God".
�
�	This means, at least to me, that we follow the commandments of God, 
�	AND DO THE WORKS (nasty word!) ASSOCIATED BY DOING SO, instead of 
�	doing the works of following the devil.  I think there is a great 
�	difference in doing "works of righteousness" and the "works of the 
�	Law of Moses".  This is, after all, what I think Paul was referring 
�	to when he made the statement.  There is so much more in the Bible 
�	about how Paul had to fight the common Jewish misconception of being 
�	saved by works of the law [of Moses].
�
�	I think it is a great tragedy to take all the available scripture in
�	the Bible (some of which I have previously pointed out), and *ignore* 
�	the fact that we must do SOMETHING other than profess a belief.
�
�	Yes, we must accept Christ and believe that he has the power to save
�	us and bring about our salvation, but it is a COVENANT that we enter
�	into and not a situation where we can just lean back and let Christ do
�	everything for us.  This later attitude is most prevalent among those
�	who profess the "saved by grace through professing Jesus Christ" and
�	then doing nothing more.  If we do not do the works of Christ, then we
�	are doing the works of the devil.

I pretty much agree here.  The Bible is clear in saying faith without works is
dead.  Then there's Mark 16:15, Matthew 10:32-33, and Romans 10:9-10.  However,
in the case of a death-bed type conversion where there is no time for works, I
believe the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior will still save that person.

�	The effects of the atonement are given only to those who *repent* and
�	forsake their sins.  Again, this is doing something.  Those who think
�	they can wander the earth doing anything they want after they have
�	*professed* their belief and acceptance of Christ will be sadly 
�	mistaken when their time comes to meet their maker.  To fully live in
�	the gospel of Jesus Christ, the WHOLE amount of scripture God has given
�	us must be taken into account.  Even if a person will only accept the
�	Bible as the word of God, it is still pretty much all there.  Most of
�	it comes from Paul, and ever Peter said Paul was hard to understand.

Agreed again.  A true believer bears fruit.  If you're still living in the
world, you probably weren't saved to begin with because you obviously didn't
take it seriously.

�    claim they will be "saved" or that I agree with their dogmas.  I leave 
�    it to God to judge individuals.
    
    Steve, if you read all of Matthew 7 you might change your mind.  I believe
    we're told here to judge righteously and with caution, but we're still
    called to judge.  How can we discern who the dogs and swine are without
    judging?

Mike

RE:    <<< Note 97.193 by FRETZ::HEISER "green grass and high tides forever" >>>
                                -< catching up >-

�	Christ is the head of his church.  He established it when he was 
�	here upon the earth, and gave the leadership authority to the first 
�	presidency of Peter, James, and John.  This original first presidency 
�	returned (in the early 1800's) and bestowed that authority upon Joseph
�	Smith and Oliver Cowdery (see also D&C 27:12-14), and then they 
�	through the twelve apostles and three witnesses.  Each priesthood 
�	member of this church today can trace their priesthood authority 
�	through them to Jesus Christ.

>Who is the original first presidency that returned in the 1800's to give JS the
>authority?

	HUH? I stated it in the paragraph -- Peter, James, and John.  

�>   The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church 
�>   would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), ...
�
�	My impression of that section of the Bible is different, and I don't
�	see anything talking about the true church much less it never leaving.
�
�	     18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,  and  upon
�		this  rock  I  will  build  my church; and the gates of hell
�	        shall not prevail against it.

>Well, as I understand it, JS was given the restored, true gospel in the 1800's.
>This seems to imply that the original gospel was wrong or had disappeared
>sometime before then.  If this is the case, doesn't that mean that Hell
>prevailed against the Christ's Church?  I've supplied Biblical references saying
>that the body of believers is the Church Jesus spoke of.  Did Hell prevail over
>the believers?

	The Biblical references you supplied were also with your interpretations
	that do not always agree with my understanding of the same scripture.

	Christ established his church with his gospel when he was on the earth.
	The gospel was never wrong, but has been restored because it fell away.
	The original church that Christ established also fell away, and was
	replaced by that of men (or what seemed the most desireous to men).

	Christ's church went by the way-side.  Your interpretation of Peter's
	testimony has been to believe that it implied that church.  I do not
	believe that interpretation is correct.  II Thes. 2:1-(3) plainly state
	that there must first be a falling away of the church, or "true belief".
	This is detailed in this conference in notes 4.11 and 4.12.  In these
	topics you will be introduced to scripture which spoke of this falling
	away by the body of believers.  The gospel has been restored to it's
	fullnes.  That is not to say that it was wrong at the first, but that
	the truth went by the wayside, and it has now been restored to the
	completeness of the original.

	Charles

>>	it through prayer and the manifestation of the truth through the Holy
>>	Ghost, i.e. not by "flesh and blood."  I believe that Christ's church
>>	is led, guided, and directed by the rock of revelation and not the 
>>	personage of Peter.  I also believe that the Holy Ghost is the only 
>>	thing the devil can not duplicate, and that is why revelation will
>>	prevail against the gates of hell.
>
>Agreed.  That's why I don't understand what happened to the Church (i.e., body
>of believers) that required a new gospel.  This seems to also imply that the
>first one was a mistake and I know God doesn't make mistakes.

	There is no NEW gospel, but the restoration of the original.

>Maybe so.  Couldn't also be said that phrase applies to the works in the first
>part of that verse?  If so, then it would agree with Ephesians 2:4-9.  At least
>that's how I view it.  No matter how much we witness to our children and
>bretheren, it is still only the grace of God that saves us.

	To take the first part of a verse to try and make it agree with a part
	of some other verse, to establish a particular doctrinal principle,
	without regard to the rest of the scriptures, or the *context* of those
	scriptures, is what has led to the proliferation of religion from the
	one true God.

	We can agree, however, that when all is said and done, it is by the 
	grace of God that we are saved.  But as there are many mansions in the
	kingdom of God, it would be good, I think, to ask exactly what are we
	saved to?

>I pretty much agree here.  The Bible is clear in saying faith without works is
>dead.  Then there's Mark 16:15, Matthew 10:32-33, and Romans 10:9-10.  However,
>in the case of a death-bed type conversion where there is no time for works, I
>believe the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior will still save that person.

	I do not believe this because we will be judged by the "fruit" of our
	labors, and not just by profession of belief (which Christ points out).

>�    claim they will be "saved" or that I agree with their dogmas.  I leave 
>�    it to God to judge individuals.
>    
>    Steve, if you read all of Matthew 7 you might change your mind.  I believe
>    we're told here to judge righteously and with caution, but we're still
>    called to judge.  How can we discern who the dogs and swine are without
>    judging?

	If we read John 8:1-11, I believe the lesson is that unless we are
	without sin, then we have no right to *condemn* others.  Oh, we must
	judge what we will do, but that is the extent of it.  Only those who
	have a stewardship over others have the right to judge in a condemning
	manner.  Jesus Christ has been given that stewardship of judgement over
	all the inhabitants of this earth, and will "judge" them in that sense,
	but I believe that as persons, we are not to judge other persons in a 
	condemning way.

	Charles

>	believe that interpretation is correct.  II Thes. 2:1-(3) plainly state
>	that there must first be a falling away of the church, or "true belief".
>	This is detailed in this conference in notes 4.11 and 4.12.  In these
    
    I can see your position now.  I believe II Thes. 2:1-3 is an
    eschatological passage.  The Greek word used there "apostasia" which
    means "defection", "revolt", or "rebellion" against God.  But there is 
    another meaning - it can be translated disappearance or departure.  
    II Thessalonians 2:3 could also read:
    
    "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
     except there come a disappearance (or departure) first, and that man of 
     sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
    
    This is in accordance with I Thessalonians 4:16-17.

>	If we read John 8:1-11, I believe the lesson is that unless we are
>	without sin, then we have no right to *condemn* others.  Oh, we must
>	judge what we will do, but that is the extent of it.  Only those who
>	have a stewardship over others have the right to judge in a condemning
>	manner.  Jesus Christ has been given that stewardship of judgement over
>	all the inhabitants of this earth, and will "judge" them in that sense,
>	but I believe that as persons, we are not to judge other persons in a 
>	condemning way.
    
    Would abiding by Matthew 7:6 necessarily mean you have to condemn
    someone?  I don't believe so.  I agree with what you say, only God can
    condemn.  If I chose not to share the gospel with Jeffrey Dahmer
    because I think he's swine, I am not condemning him, but I am judging
    him.
    
    Mike