Conference tecrus::mormonism

In 38.7, Leza referred to a lot of scriptures, and it will behoove all of us
to seriously and prayerfully study her interpretations and concerns.  Many of
her concerns have already been discussed in other notes, and I'm giving in
this reply a correlation between 38.7 and those other notes.

In addition, I hope that everyone will contribute their understanding of the
scriptures about God.  Jesus said, "And this is life eternal that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
Life eternal is knowing God!  The topic discussed by Leza in 38.7 is in my
judgment the most important topic we can study--Who is God?  What is God?  What
is our relationship to Him?

4.1  The Godhead
4.2  The Form Of God
4.3  The Virgin Birth Of Jesus
4.4  The God To Whom I Pray
4.6  The Bible As A Source Of Truth
4.7  Answers To Prayer
4.13 The Doctrine Of The Trinity
4.49 We Are Adopted To Christ
4.50 Where Did We Come From
4.51 Jesus The Firstborn
4.52 War In Heaven
4.53 Spirit Brothers And Sisters
4.54 Latter-day Revelation: Where Did We Come From?
4.55 Why Are We Here?
4.56 The Book of Mormon Teaches A Probationary State
4.57 The Spirit World
4.58 The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ
4.59 The Resurrection Of Everyone
4.60 The Judgment
4.61 Many Mansions
4.62 Latter-day Revelation: Salvation For The Dead
4.63 Latter-day Revelation: The Three Degrees Of Glory
4.64 Latter-day Revelation: Outer Darkness
4.65 Hell
4.66 Latter-day Revelation: Eternal Marriage
4.67 The Plan Of Salvation
4.68 Latter-day Revelation: The Glory Of God

 97   The Godhead
105.3 Changes To The Book Of Mormon For Clarification
109   The Lectures On Faith

>If one sentence could be used to sum up the difference between Mormonism 
>and Christianity it could be said without fear of contradiction that 
>Mormonism is polytheistic and Christianity is monotheistic.

"Mormonism has never been willing to adopt the term 'polytheism'.  But
since polytheism technically refers to belief in the existence of more
than one god--clearly a Mormon doctrine--why have Latter-day Saints refused
to use this common, widely understood term to define their doctrine of God?
The answer is that while the term is technically appropriate, the technical
definition is not the only consideration.  Through the centuries, 'polytheism'
has been used to refer to ancient systems of gods totally foreign and
obnoxious to Mormonism. These gods were depicted as immoral, quarrelsome,
and often guilty of adultery, fornication, incest, rape, lying, thievery,
drunkenness, and murder.  As a result, tradition has imbued this word with a
very negative connotation.

"In contrast, Mormon doctrine teaches the existence of many gods, not in the
sense of many contending gods, some good and some bad, but rather in the sense
of many divine beings of impeccably moral character working in perfect unity
for a common end.  It is understandable, then, that virtually the only ones 
applying the term 'polytheism' to the LDS church are its active opponents,
who are frequently less interested in accurately explaining its doctrine than
in harnessing it with an offensive, negative term.  It seems only fair to allow
a religious body to reject any descriptive terms which it finds unacceptable.
A term acceptable to Mormons is 'plurality of gods'.  This phrase conveys the
doctrine of many gods without polytheism's connotations of many sordid beings."

-- Van Hale, "Define the Mormon Doctrine of Deity", Mormon Miscellaneous
   Reprint series #6, p. 5, Mormon Miscellaneous, 8865 South 1300 East, Sandy,
   Utah 84092, (801) 561-5103

>Historic 
>Christianity has always affirmed that "within the nature of the one Eternal 
>God, there are 3 persons:  the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit."

As I explained in notes 4.1 and 4.2, Biblical Christianity teaches that God
the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate personages but comprise
one Godhead, and that they are one in unity and purpose.

          The New Testament refers to Jesus and the Father as being one.
          Consider the following passage:

              I and my Father are one.  (John 10:30)

          If we were to consider this passage without considering the
          context of the New Testament as a whole, we might conclude that
          the Father and the Son are one God or personage as stated by the
          orthodox teaching on the Trinity.

          However, if we consider John 10:30 in context with the Bible as a
          whole, we realize that Jesus and the Father are one in some way
          different than person.

          First, as discussed above [note 4.1] we have many references made by
          Jesus to his Father, references which only make sense if the Father
          and the Son are separate personages.

          Second, Jesus prayed that his disciples would be "one; as thou,
          Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in
          us".  (John 17:20:22) I don't think he intended his disciples to
          jump into one body and become one person.  I do think he wanted
          them to become one in unity and purpose as he and the Father are
          one in unity and purpose but exist as separate personages.

              Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of
              man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing
              of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these
              things.  And he that sent me is with me:  the Father hath not
              left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
              (John 8:28-29)

          In writing to the Christians in Corinth, Paul referred to the
          many idols being worshiped by the pagans and reminded the
          Christians that they worshiped one God.

              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 Corinthians 8:4-6)

          In verse 4, Paul referred to one God while in verse 6, Paul
          clearly denoted God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate and
          distinct personages:  "there is but one God, the Father...and one
          Lord Jesus Christ".  Because of the unity between the Father and
          Jesus, Paul referred to them as one God even though they are
          separate personages.  He emphasized "one God" in his epistles
          because he was dealing with people who came from the world of
          many pagan gods, and he needed to get them to focus on Jesus as
          the Christ.

          In a similar vein, Moses spoke of one God.  He was dealing with
          people who were familiar with the many Egyptian gods, and he
          needed to get them to focus on Jehovah.  Even though the Godhead
          consisted of three Gods or personages, as far as the people
          living the lower Law of Moses were concerned there was one God.

          In addition, since the three members of the Godhead are perfectly
          united, it is proper to refer to them as "one God".


It is true that historic Christianity after the Apostles were gone met in
uninspired councils and defined God as being one in substance (see note 4.13).

Allen

    Re: Note 38.7 by IAMOK::LEZAS

    These are the main ideas I got out of Leza's note, and my thoughts on
    them. Allen has provided an excellent scriptural basis for Mormon
    beliefs on these topics. I will not attempt to repeat that effort here,
    but refer interested parties to the notes listed in reply 1 of this
    topic. 
    
    1- Mormons believe that the Godhead consists of three distinct beings,
    while traditional Christian faiths believe in the doctrine of a trinity
    that is comprised of three entities that are different manifestations
    of the same God. 
                     
         This is true. We disagree with traditional Christian faiths.
         We reconcile the scriptural references to one God, both in
         the Bible and the Book of Mormon, by understanding them in
         context to mean one in UNITY and one in PURPOSE, but not one
         being. They (God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
         Ghost) comprise one Godhead, but are in fact three separate
         beings. 
         
    2- Mormons believe that God can be seen, and has a physical (but
    perfect and glorified) body, while traditional Christian faiths believe
    that God is a Spirit, and cannot be seen. 
    
         This, too is true. We disagree with traditional Christian
         faiths and hold that just as Jesus was resurrected with a
         perfected body, ascended into heaven with that body, and is
         yet in possession of that body, so also is our Father in
         Heaven in possession of a glorified body. He is *also* in
         possession of a spirit, and so it is correct to say that God
         is a spirit. Many in the Bible recorded that they saw God,
         and we believe the one or two references in the Bible that
         indicate that God cannot be seen are examples of errors that
         have crept in to the Bible. Otherwise, there is an
         irreconcilable conflict in the Bible itself. 
    
    3- Mormons believe that God was once a man, and is now an exhalted
    being, that mankind has the potential to become as our Father in
    Heaven, while traditional Christian faiths do not believe this. 
         
         This is true. We believe the Bible when it says "Be ye
         therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect".
         We believe the many promises in the Bible, where the faithful
         are promised that they will be given *all* that the Father
         has. We do not seek to exhalt ourselves, but we do believe in
         the promises of God, that He will exhalt the faithful,
         and we hope to be recipients of His promised blessings. 
    
    4- The text of the Book of Mormon was changed to indicate that Jesus
    Christ was the Son of God, rather than referring to him as God. 
         
         The changes in the Book of Mormon have been discussed
         at length elsewhere in this conference. We do now, and
         always have affirmed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
         He is our Redeemer, and our Savior. He is the Only Begotten
         of the Father, born of the virgin Mary, suffered for our
         sins, was resurrected, and in all things obeyed His Father.
         
    5- Mormons believe that Jesus is held to be a mere "noble and saintly
    soul", and not a God. 
         
         This is not true. The name of Jesus Christ is the only name
         through which man may return to God. He was ordained from
         before the foundations of the earth to Redeem mankind from
         their lost and fallen state. We do believe that Jesus Christ
         is a God. We do not seek to bring Him down to our level, but
         rather to emulate him in every way that we can. 
    
    6- Mormons believe that to become a God, one must have been born and
    gain a body first. Therefore, how can the Holy Ghost be a God, and how
    could Jesus have been a God before his birth, as Mormons believe he
    was, if they have (had) no bodies. 
         
         God has not seen fit to reveal a great deal about what
         Godhood entails. We do believe that Jesus was a God, and the
         Creator of this earth before he was born, and that he did it
         under the direction of God the Father. We also believe that
         the Holy Ghost is a God. Therefore, in at least these two
         instances, it is possible to be a God without having yet
         received a body. But we do believe that it is necessary to
         receive a body to become like our Father in Heaven, just as
         Jesus received a body and became like our Father in Heaven. 
         
    7- The books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price differ in
    their description of whether the creation was conducted by a single
    God, or by a counsel of Gods. 
         
         The accounts are not mutually exclusive. One simply adds
         additional information. Even Genesis refers to the creation
         as being conducted by a council of Gods, yet in other
         places in the Bible, God claims the He created the earth.
         This is easily explained by the UNITY of the members of
         the Godhead.
         
    8- Mormons believe that we existed as spirits before we were born and
    dwelled with our Father in Heaven, while traditional Christian faiths
    believe that we did not exist before birth. 
    
         This is true. We believe that the Bible teaches this
         doctrine. I refer you to the appropriate notes in topic
         4 for references.

    All of the notes of Leza's report purport to show that Mormonism is not
    Biblical. The real issue, however, is not that Mormonism is not
    Biblical, but that Mormonism disagrees with traditional Christianity's
    view of the Bible. 
    
    We believe that the Bible provides excellent support and harmony with
    the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The
    Bible and the Book of Mormon, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and
    Pearl of Great Price, testify boldly of Jesus Christ and of His
    divinity. They also testify and show that many who would desire and
    claim to believe in Christ would be deceived by the doctrines of men.
    So, it is not surprising to Mormons that there is disagreement with
    traditional Christian faiths on many points. 
    
    As Leza has pointed out, one day we will all know whether these things
    are true. In the meantime, I challenge all to study them out, and to
    ask God if they are true. God can and does answer such prayers, for He
    has answered mine. 
    
    Witnessing of Jesus Christ,
    Rich              
    

>"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)

Not that any man hath seen the father, save he which is of God, he hath seen
the Father. (John 6:46)


>Jesus talking: "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."  (John 5:37)

And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased.  (Matthew 3:17)


>"Who is the image of the invisible God.." (Colossians 1:15)

Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-43).  He
had that body while he was with his disciples after the resurrection, and
he ascended to heaven with it and will return with it (Acts 1:1-11).  Since
Jesus can not die again because his resurrection overcame death, he *must*
have that resurrected body today--if he doesn't he has suffered death again!
In Colossians 1:15, Paul said Jesus was the image of God; hence God must
also have a glorified body of flesh and bones.  The context of Paul's statement
that God is an invisible God is *not* that God does not have a body but that
God is *not* with the people in a direct way and Jesus is the mediator between
us and Him.

In replying to these three scriptures, I'm not trying to create an argument over
interpretation but to put over the point that one must take the context of the
Bible as a whole.

Allen

>In replying to these three scriptures, I'm not trying to create an argument
>over
>interpretation but to put over the point that one must take the context of the
>Bible as a whole.

>Allen


Indeed, one must remember the setting of the Bible, in order to get a proper
context for what is said.  For example, when Jesus speaks, is He talking to
His Apostles, a multitude, or personal friends?  Paul, in his letters,
addresses members of the church of his time (who had been baptised, had the
true Gospel taught them, and had the holy Priesthood of God given to them), not
the multitudes of the earth.  Even the Gospels have each a different audience
in mind.  While the Gospel is eternal and true, it is represented in 
different ways for the different intended audiences of the original letters,
sermons, etc. and we must not confuse this.

Chad

>"...believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?  and he said, Yea.  And 
>Ammon said:  this is God."  (Alma 18:26-28)
>
>"And the king said:  Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out 
>of the land of Jerusalem?  And Aaron said unto him:  Yea, he is that Great 
>Spirit and he created all things..." (Alma 22:8-11)

These two passages from the Book of Mormon concern Ammon and Aaron, Nephite
missionaries to the Lamanites.  Let's take a closer look at the verses.

Ammon served as a missionary to the Lamanites, and he was captured by guards
of a Lamanite King, King Lamoni.  Ammon asked that he be made a servant to
the King, and while serving thus he defended the flocks of the king from
robbers.  Lamoni was so impressed with Ammon's strength that he had him brought
before the King.  Ammon, through the Spirit, discerned the thoughts of the
King and told the King what he was thinking.  This so impressed the King that
he thought Ammon must be that "Great Spirit, who knows all things".  About
510 years had elapsed since Lehi and his family migrated from Jerusalem, and
the Lamanites had lost a knowledge of God and thought of God only as a "Great
Spirit".

In answer to the King's question, "Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all
things?", Ammon said, "I am not".  The King asked Ammon how he knew the thoughts
of the King's heart, and Ammon said in reply, "Believest thou that there is a
God?"  The King said, "I do not know what that meaneth".

Ammon realized that he had to teach the King with very simple concepts, so
he used the King's simple faith in that "Great Spirit" as a starting point.
He said, "Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit", and in response to
the King's answer "Yea", Ammon said "This is God".

Thus, we see that the verse from the Book of Mormon quoted by Leza does not
teach that God is a spirit; it is merely Ammon taking King Lamoni's simple
faith in that "Great Spirit" and using it as a teaching tool to teach the
King the true nature of God.  Ammon went on and taught the King about Heaven,
angels, man being created in the *image of God*, the Holy Spirit, Adam, the
creation of the world and the fall of man, and the history of the family of
Lehi, including Laman and Lemuel's rebellion.  Most importantly, he taught
the King about the atonement of Christ and the redemption of mankind.

The King was converted to Christ and said, "O Lord, have mercy; according to thy
abundant mercy which thou hast had upon the people of Nephi, have upon me, and
my people".  A few days later the King and many of the Lamanites were baptized
into the Church.

The story of Aaron, Ammon's brother, concerns his missionary work with King
Lamoni's father who was King over all the Lamanites, Lamoni being King over
only a part of them.  As Ammon had done, Aaron used the King's simple faith
in that "Great Spirit" to teach him the true nature of God in whose image
we are created.

It is significant that both Ammon and Aaron taught the two Kings that man
was created in the *image of God*.

Leza,

  Hi. I don't mean to belabor the points that have already been articulately
responded to by others in the conference.  I do want to stress a couple of
points though, because these *ARE* crucial differences between our beliefs
and those of many "orthodox" Christians.  

>"A spirit does not have flesh and bones..." (Luke 24:39)

I find it almost humorous that you would use (a portion of) this verse to
illustrate the points you were trying to make; namely, that God is invisible
and that He has no body.  The verse is a record of words spoken by the mouth
of the resurrected Lord Jesus to the eleven apostles ("and them that were
with them."--v.33).  The passage (v.36) says that while these disciples were
talking about the events of the last fews days, "Jesus stood in the midst of
them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."  So obviously, the resurrected
body of Jesus *can* be made invisible and is apparently not subject to the
physical laws of this world (as far as we understand them) in the same way
that our mortal bodies are.  However, that it is a tangible body of flesh and
bones is made clear in plain language in the verse you partially quoted:

	Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle 
	me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, ***AS
	YE SEE ME HAVE.***  (Luke 24:39, emphasis mine)

And then, to further prove to them that his body was as real and tangible
as theirs (even after they had seen and FELT it), he asked if they had any
meat.

	And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
	And he took it, and did eat before them.    (vs. 42,43)

If Jesus subsequently disposed of this resurrected, glorified body of flesh
and bones, it would mean that death has conquered Him.  Such an event would
have great implications on the fate of mankind.  Under this doctrine, the
conquest of death by Christ is a farce, and there is no hope for salvation
for any one.  I would be greatly interested in hearing about or reading any
reference that shows that the spirit body of Jesus has been separated from
the flesh and bone body of Jesus since the time of His resurrection.

>I understand and know well the Scriptures that say God has hands, or that 
>they saw him face to face, etc.  These Scriptures are found in the Old 
>Testament.  

Except for the verse you quoted above, which is in the New Teatament.

>              If we use this as logic, then we have to take into 
>consideration the Scriptures that say:

You can't use that as logic for two reasons: 1) it's not true.
					     2) it's non-sequitir.

>God has wings: "He shall cover thee with his feathers and under his wings 
>shall thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler." (Psalms 91:4)
>
>Jesus was seen as the Lamb of God in Rev. 5:6, as the Lion of Judah in 
>Revelations 5:5, as the Bread of Life in John 6:35, as the Cornerstone (a 
>rock) in Eph 2:20 and he says, I am the TRUE VINE in John 15:1-6.
>
>So, if we took these literally, God is a chicken and Jesus is a messed up 
>creature made of animal, vegetable and mineral.  This may sound alittle 
>flippant, but I think that when the Bible states that someone spoke to God 
>face to face, or saw his backside, I believe this is figurative.  

The fact is, some scriptures are figurative and some of them are real and
true descriptions.  How do we know the difference?  Common sense and context
are good places to start. For one thing, we know that we are created in
God's image, so any references to feathers, wings, etc., would be ruled out
as real descriptions, and should be interpreted as figurative. People who
have the spirit of prophecy, or who are privileged to be taught by prophets
who receive revelation from God and are authorized to declare His word have
an added advantage in that they may know the meaning of all the scriptures.

>.....
>
>Is there a contradiction?:  "It is clear that the Father is a personal 
>being, possessing a definite form, with bodily parts and spiritual 
>passions... We affirm that to deny the materiality of God's person is to 
>deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole, an immaterial body cannot 
>exist."  (Articles of Faith, page 41)
>
>Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit be a God?  He is immaterial -- according 
>to the above quote, then, the Holy Spirit cannot exist.

	There is no such thing as immaterial matter.  All spirit is matter,
	but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer
	eyes;  We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall
	see that it is all matter.        (D & C 131:7,8)

When the disciples of Christ saw Him as a resurrected being, they thought
they had seen a spirit--even a spirit has form--hands, feet, face, etc.,
just not flesh and bones.

Good day,

Dave

>One question:  the Mormons teach that Jehovah (Jesus Christ prior to the 
>incarnation) deals exclusively with Man after the fall.  Therefore, how can 
>you use Old Testament symbolism that explains God (Jehovah-Jesus) as having 
>flesh and bones when he hasn't been born yet?  Was he not still in His 
>spirit body? 

Leza, I'm not sure I fully understand your question, so I'm going to talk
for a moment about the topic, and if I don't answer the question please
ask it again.

Yes, Mormons believe that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and as
such he was not flesh and bones (not having yet been born of Mary) but was
a "spirit personage", i.e. having a spirit body.  Spirit bodies have heads,
arms, legs, etc. and are composed of matter as Dave pointed out in the
previous reply.  When Jesus showed himself to the brother of Jared, he was
showing his spirit body and told the prophet that we were created after the
image of his spirit body.

    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)

As I think you were pointing out via your question, the Old Testament verses
that refer to Jehovah are referring to his spirit body not to a body of 
flesh and bonds.  Sometimes Mormons incorrectly use those verses to teach
that God has a body of flesh and bones; in notes 4.1 and 4.2, I was careful
to not make that mistake.  In those notes I show that we are created after
the image of Jesus' spirit body.  Then I show that Jesus was resurrected
with a perfect body of flesh and bones and that since he can not die again
he has that body today.  Finally I show that he is the express image of
God, implying that God has a perfect body of flesh and bones.

Genesis 1:26-27 says that God made us after his image, and God uses the
plural to refer to himself.  We believe that the Father was talking to the Son.
During that conversation, the Father had a perfect physical body while the Son
had a spirit body.  We are actually in the image of both types of bodies since
both types are composed of matter and have arms, legs, etc.  Of course the
matter used in the two types of bodies is different.  Thus, it is ok to use that
scripture to teach that God the Father has flesh and bones, but we have to be
careful to not use other verses that only apply to the Son (Jehovah)

Allen

>"And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?  
>And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.  Now Zeezrom said:  
>Is there more than one God?  And he answered, No...and shall be brought and 
>be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father and the 
>Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their 
>works..." (Alma 11:26-44)

This dialog between the wicked lawyer Zeezrom and the Nephite missionary
Amulek is one of my favorites from the Book of Mormon; Zeezrom trys to play
tricks with word-definitions, as do most of the anti-Mormon pamphlets that
are distributed.  Let us take a closer look at the situation.

First, let's read about Zeezrom so we will understand the type of person we
are dealing with.

    Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their
    wages according to their employ, therefore, they [the wicked lawyers] did
    stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and
    wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money
    according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did
    stir up the people against Alma and Amulek. (Alma 11:20)

In other words, Zeezrom was not sincere in his questioning of Amulek; rather
than trying to honestly understand the message of Amulek, he was trying to make
him look foolish.  In fact Amulek characterized Zeezrom as being "expert in
the devices of the devil".

Zeezrom asked, "Thou sayest there is a true and living God?"
Amulek answered, "Yea, there is a true and living God."

With that answer, Zeezrom began to lay a trap for Amulek.

He asked, "Is there more than one God?"
Amulek answered, "No."

Zeezrom deepened his trap by asking the source of Amulek's knowledge.
"How knowest thou these things?"
Amulek answered, "An angel hath made them known unto me."

Zeezrom completed his trap by asking, "Who is he that shall come? Is it the
Son of God?"
Amulek entered the trap by answering "Yea."

Zeezrom sprang the trap by explaining to the people that Amulek had been
inconsistent in saying that there was *one* God and not more than *one* God
but also that there was a *Son* of God, i.e. the Son being a second God.

"Now Zeezrom said unto the people; See that ye remember these things; for he
said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come..."

If effect, Zeezrom was saying, "Listen everyone.  Amulek is a false prophet.
He said there is only one God, but he also said there are two Gods (the
Father and the Son)."  Likewise, anti-Mormon pamphlets quote Amulek's statement
that there is only one God and then they quote Latter-day revelation about the
plurality of Gods, and they say, "Listen everyone.  The LDS church is not
consistent.  The Book of Mormon teaches there is only one God, while other LDS
scriptures teach of more than one God.  The LDS church is of the devil."

This "comparison" of LDS scriptures was in the first anti-Mormon pamphlet
that I ever read when I was 16, and it has been in most of the ones I have
read since then.  It is interesting that the pamphlets use the same line
of reasoning that Zeezrom used, a line of reasoning that Amulek characterized
as being "in the devices of the devil".

When Amulek said there was one God and not more than one God but there was also
a Son of God, what did he mean?

The Nephites were living the Law of Moses, and to them Jehovah or Jesus Christ
was their God.  That is, they were not directly involved with God the Father.
In giving the Law to them, God through His prophet Moses emphasized Jehovah
as God rather than the full Godhead because the people had lived for about
20 generations among the Egyptians and their polytheistic religion.  God
wanted the people to focus on Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, as God rather than
on the many gods of the Egyptian religion.  Later, when the Law had served its
purpose and brought them to Christ, they would be given the concept of the
Godhead.

I like the analogy of my Supervisor.  As far as I am concerned there is only
one Supervisor, my immediate boss.  In reality there are other Supervisors
within the Corporation, but I am not directly involved with them.  When Amulek
said there was one God, he was referring to Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, the God of
the Old Testament.  In referring to Jesus being the Son of God, Amulek was
acknowledging that God the Father existed.  Likewise, the Book of Mormon
teaches in many places the existence of the Holy Ghost, the third member of the
Godhead.  Even though the Nephites lived the Law of Moses, they were more
righteous than the Jews and had the Melchizedek Priesthood and understood
about the Godhead (they had a different dispensation).

The lesson in all of this is that we have to take passages from the scriptures
in *context* and understand the *perspective* from which the ancient peoples
spoke.  We have to strive to understand the *meaning* of the words not just
the words themselves.

The story of Zeezrom had a happy ending, and it would behoove us to follow his
example.  Alma taught Zeezrom the Gospel and explained why some people do not
understand the *context* of the scriptures but continually nit-pick word
definitions, never understanding the *meaning* of the words.

    And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given
    unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under
    a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion
    of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the
    heed and diligence which they give unto him.

    And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the
    lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him
    is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to
    know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

    And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lessor portion
    of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they
    are taken captive by the devil, and let by his will down to destruction.
    Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.  (Alma 12:9-11)

I love to read the story of Zeezrom, because he recognized that he was
distorting the teachings of God and was attacking true prophets of God.  He
admitted to himself that he was wrong, and he began to open his heart to the
Spirit of God.

    And Zeezrom began to inquire of them diligently, that he might know more
    concerning the kingdom of God....And it came to pass that Zeezrom was
    astonished at the words which had been spoken; and he also knew concerning
    the blindness of the minds, which he had caused among the people by his
    lying words; and his soul began to be harrowed up under a consciousness
    of his own guilt; yea, he began to be encircled about by the pains of hell.
    (Alma 12:8, 14:6)

    And also Zeezrom lay sick at Sidon, with a burning fever, which was
    caused by the great tribulations of his mind on account of his wickedness,
    for he supposed that Alma and Amulek were no more; and he supposed that 
    they had been slain because of his iniquity.  And this great sin, and his
    many other sins, did harrow up his mind until it did become exceedingly
    sore, having no deliverance; therefore he began to be scorched with a 
    burning heat.

    Now, when he heard that Alma and Amulek were in the land of Sidon, his
    heart began to take courage; and he sent a message immediately unto them,
    desiring them to come unto him.

    And it came to pass that they went immediately, obeying the message which
    he had sent unto them; and they went in unto the house unto Zeezrom; and
    they found him upon his bed, sick, being very low with a burning fever;
    and his mind also was exceedingly sore because of his iniquities; and
    when he saw them he stretched forth his hand, and besought them that they
    would heal him.....

    And Alma baptized Zeezrom unto the Lord; and he began from that time forth
    to preach unto the people.  (Alma 15:3-5,12)

This has always been a very difficult issue to discuss - who God is.  I 
guess I liken it to looking at water:  water is one substance, yet can be 
made liquid, solid or gas.  Just as our bodies are made up of body, soul 
and spirit.  Or, if we look at it mathematically:  God as one can be 
considered:  1 X 1 X 1 = 1.  God as three can be considered: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

I have chosen to consider - which is backed up by scripture - that God is 
one.  I may be getting ahead of myself here, as someone maybe responding to 
these points, but I will address them anyway.

You have all chosen to pick those scriptures that say, Jesus prayed to the 
father, the father spoke to the son, etc. etc.  This to me, however, does 
not prove that there are three separate Gods.  Why can't God, who is all 
powerful and omnipresent, manifest Himself as flesh?  If we look at 
ourselves, we can be speaking to a person with our lips, yet at the very 
same time, be thinking of something totally unrelated.

You limit God to a body when he says in Jeremiah 23:24: Do not I fill 
Heaven and Earth?

Let's look at the term "image".  In the dictionary it says:  1.  A 
reproduction of the form of a person or thing, a sculptured likeness.  2. 
An optically formed counterpart of an object, esp. one formed by a lens or 
mirror.  3.  A mental picture of something not present or real.  4.  One 
that closely resembles another: the very image of his grandfther.  5.  A 
personification:  He is the image of health.  6.  A vivid description or 
representation.

When it says, man was made in the image of God, does it necessarily mean 
his outward appearance?  Could it also not mean his inward appearance?  God 
is love, mercy, justice...  So when we were made in His image, could it not 
have ment his personality?

------

Why do the scriptures in the BOM that say, "I AM THE FATHER AND THE SON..." 
seem to be ignored? (Ether 3:14 and Mosiah 15:1-5)

How do you explain the scriptures that clearly state, there is one God 
(made up of father, son and holy ghost) and that there is NO God before, or 
after or beside Him?  (Deut. 4:35, Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 44:6-8, Jeremiah 
10:10)

That he could not PROGRESS from a man, because He is NOT a man (in Numbers, 
sorry, I forgot  the passage but it was in my last report) nor was He ever 
a man.  He was God from the beginning.  He did NOT birth them as spirit 
children in the pre-existence.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit existed with him 
from the beginning.  Jesus even said, before Abraham was, I AM.  The Holy 
spirit in Hebrews 3:7-9 spoke of his speaking to the jews in the wilderness 
and how he swears, "IN MY WRATH they shall not enter into MY rest."  That 
is why, it is made very clear, in Genisys, he said, Let US make man in our 
image.  The US was the One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  (Not Eloheim, 
Jehovah, Adam, Michael and who knows who else.)

The Bible clearly teaches that we were NATURAL BODY first and that we 
obtain a spiritual body in the resurrection.  (1st Corin. 15:35-54).  We 
were not spirit first and then made flesh.  We become LIKE a god due to the 
resurrection and the putting on of immortal bodies, but we do NOT become a 
god.
------

Your own works teach the Jesus was the Lord Omnipotent from eternity to 
eternity.  (Mosiah 3:5-8)  In John 8:21-30, Jesus states that he is from 
above: not of this world.  That He is.  This translates in the Greek to ego 
eimi, Christ's expression for His Eternal Diety.  John 10:30 Jesus says, "I 
and my Father are one."  The Jews wanted to stone him, not because of the 
works he was doing, but because of his blasphemy, he was making himself to 
be God.  The Jewish customs were that when you were the son of someone, you 
held equal status with that person.  So, Jesus as the Son of God, was equal 
with God the Father, for they make up (with the Holy Spirit) one God.

Although you claim, today, that you believe Jesus was conceived by the 
power of the Holy Ghost, through the virgin Mary, you contradict what 
Brigham Young taught:  "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the 
births of our children; it was the result of natural action.  He partook of 
flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." J 
of D: 8:115.  Heber C. Kimball in J of D 8:211 said, "In relation to the 
way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say 
that I was naturally begotten, so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus 
Christ.  According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his 
father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it."

Naturally begotten removes "supernatural" from even being considered.  If 
Jesus was naturally begotten, that means through phyisical contact.

Brigham Young, Orson Hyde and Jedediah Grant, all taught that Jesus was 
married, had many wives and that he begat children.  J of D, 4:259-60, J of 
D. 2:210, J of D 2:81 and J of D 1:346.

------

Rich, you even state, that you don't understand why God would reveal to 
man, that to become a God, you must progress from the spirit world, to the 
flesh, die and then go back to the spirit and become a God.  Yet, God 
contradicts himself by allowing Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be Gods before 
they even have received their bodies of flesh (and it doesn't mention 
anywhere that the Holy Spirit ever had a body of flesh). Since God would 
never contradict himself, I feel this is an error on the part of the Mormon 
church.

I am trying very hard to reserve some comments, because they are in my last 
section.  The main reason I cannot accept your comments and interpretations 
of the Bible is because you believe that what Joseph taught was true and 
that his revelations were true and that his translation of the standard 
works was true.  I believe they were totally false, and therefore, any 
doctrine or revelations pertaining to him, for me, are to be totally 
ignored.

------

The definition for polytheism is: "the worship of or belief in more than 
one god."  A rose by any other name is still a rose.  Call it 'plurality of 
gods' if you will.  But you believe that someday you will become a God and 
that you will make spirit babies in heaven and that they will have to be 
born on an earth so that they too can become Gods.  Therefore, you will 
become their God and they will worship you.  And therein lies the wrath of 
God who clearly states, "thou shalt worship no other God."

         

    Re: Note 134.11 by IAMOK::LEZAS
    
    Leza,
    
    Obviously you do not believe that God's children (us) can become like
    our Father (God). I'm interested to hear how you explain the Bible
    passages that teach: 
    
    1. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect.
    Who else is perfect besides one who is a God?
    
    2. Those who are faithful in the gospel will receive all that the
    Father has. How else can we we receive *all* that the Father has,
    unless we become like He is?
    
    I know you say you believe the Bible, but your view does not seem
    consistent with what the Bible teaches. Please explain... 
    
    Curiously yours,
    Rich 
        
                                                             

RE: Note 134.12 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" 
    
    Hi Rich,
    
    I realize that this was addressed to Leza, and if I'm butting in
    inappropriately, just say so.
    
    >Re: Note 134.11 by IAMOK::LEZAS
    
    >Leza,
    
    >Obviously you do not believe that God's children (us) can become like
    >our Father (God). I'm interested to hear how you explain the Bible
    >passages that teach: 
    
    >1. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect.
    >Who else is perfect besides one who is a God?
    
    This is a reference to Matthew 5:48. The word 'perfect' is from
    the Greek 'teleios' and refers to completeness, especially in the
    area of mental and moral character. While this is a call to strive
    for this attribute, I'm sure that you'll agree that none of us actually
    achieve this in this lifetime.
    
    Does this mean that we are 'perfect' once transformed? Well, Paul
    does say that we will be raised incorruptable, but I find nowhere
    where he states that we are to become gods. Can you help with where
    I might find this?
    
    >2. Those who are faithful in the gospel will receive all that the
    >Father has. How else can we we receive *all* that the Father has,
    >unless we become like He is?
    
    I'll need a pointer on this one, Rich. Even so, I don't see how
    it would follow that receiving all that God has automatically makes
    me a god. I always thought that God had already given all that He
    had, when He gave His Son and that through this gift, we who receive
    it, become chldren of God?
    
    Charlie        
                                                             

    Re: Note 134.13 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON "Stand fast in liberty."

    Hi Charlie,
    
    Nice to see you here! Welcome.
        
>   >1. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect.
>   >Who else is perfect besides one who is a God?
>   
>   This is a reference to Matthew 5:48. The word 'perfect' is from
>   the Greek 'teleios' and refers to completeness, especially in the
>   area of mental and moral character. 
    
    Yes, I am aware of this meaning of the Greek. Even so, the Savior
    does tell us to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. If
    we say our Heavenly Father is 'complete' instead of 'perfect', to
    me the meaning is still the same: We are to become like Him. He
    is our Father, and just as we grow to become like our earthly fathers,
    we believe that we may also grow to become like our Heavenly Father.
    
>   Does this mean that we are 'perfect' once transformed? Well, Paul
>   does say that we will be raised incorruptible, but I find nowhere
>   where he states that we are to become gods. Can you help with where
>   I might find this?
>   
>   >2. Those who are faithful in the gospel will receive all that the
>   >Father has. How else can we we receive *all* that the Father has,
>   >unless we become like He is?
>   
>   I'll need a pointer on this one, Rich. Even so, I don't see how
>   it would follow that receiving all that God has automatically makes
>   me a god. I always thought that God had already given all that He
>   had, when He gave His Son and that through this gift, we who receive
>   it, become children of God?

    A good summary of our beliefs on this subject, and the Biblical basis
    for our belief, is found in Allen Leigh's note 4.67 of this conference,
    from which I have extracted the following. Please note that we do not
    rely solely on the Bible for our understanding on this topic, for we
    also have additional understanding from latter-day revelation. Even so,
    we feel that this teaching is in harmony with what is found in the
    Bible, and does not contradict the Bible. 
    
>         Jesus Taught That We Should Become Perfect
>         ------------------------------------------
>
>         While teaching that we should improve ourselves, Jesus said
>
>             Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in
>             heaven is perfect.  (Matthew 5:48)
>
>         In giving us this commandment, Jesus put into proper perspective
>         the grand purpose for our whole existence.  The Plan of Salvation
>         can be summed up in those few words:  "Be ye therefore perfect,
>         even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
>
>         We treat others as we would be treated, and in so doing we become
>         more like God.  We do not judge others and in so doing we become
>         more like God.  We forgive others and in so doing we become more
>         like God.
>
>
>         Is Perfection Actually Possible?
>         --------------------------------
>
>         Some people say that Jesus did not actually mean in Matthew 5:48
>         that we should become perfect; only God is perfect, they say.  I
>         agree that only God is perfect for all persons who are
>         accountable to God have sinned through the use of their free
>         agency.  However, I believe that Jesus was not teasing us or
>         deceiving us.  I believe that he actually said, "Be ye therefore
>         perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", and
>         I believe that he actually meant that we should become perfect,
>         through obedience to him, and by virtue of his Atonement.
>
>
>         We Become Joint Heirs with Christ
>         ---------------------------------
>
>         Paul taught that we become joint heirs with Christ.
>
>             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)
    
    Note Paul's use of the term 'glorified'. If Christ is glorified and is
    a God, and we are glorified together with him, then we, too, become
    as he is.

>             Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a
>             son, then an heir of God through Christ.  (Galatians 4:7)
>
>         Notice the sequence given by Paul.  We are the children of God
>         and *thus* we become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.
>         One would expect that an heir of God would inherit the things of
>         God.
>
>
>         We Partake of the Divine Nature of God
>         --------------------------------------
>
>         Peter taught that we actually partake of the *divine* nature of
>         God.
>
>             Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge
>             of God, and of Jesus our Lord.
>
>             According as his divine power hath given unto us all things
>             that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge
>             of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
>
>             Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
>             promises:  that by these ye might be *partakers of the divine
>             nature*, having escaped the corruption that is in the world
>             through lust.  (2 Peter 1:2-4, emphasis mine).

    Again, Peter says that we are given all things that pertain to life
    and godliness. We are partakers of the divine nature.
    
>         We Shall Inherit All Things
>         ---------------------------
>
>         John taught that those who overcometh sin through Christ will
>         inherit all things from God.
>
>             And he said unto me, It is done.  I am Alpha and Omega, the
>             beginning and the end.  I will give unto him that is athirst
>             of the fountain of the water of life freely.
>
>             He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be
>             his God, and he shall be my son.  (Revelation 21:6-7)
    
    God has all things. We inherit all things from Him, if we overcome. I
    think *all things* means all things that God has. Also, he that
    overcomes will be God's son. The Bible speaks about how a son is made
    equal with his Father. The Jews were upset that Jesus made himself out
    to be the Son of God, for this made him equal with God. If we are to
    also be 'sons' of God, then we, too, would be gods. See the reference
    below. 
    
>         Nothing Will Be Withheld By God
>         -------------------------------
>
>         From Psalms we learn that God will withhold nothing from those
>         who obey his commandments.
>
>             For the LORD God is a sun and shield:  the LORD will give
>             grace and glory:  no good thing will he withhold from them
>             that walk uprightly.  (Psalms 84:11)
>
>
>         Ye are gods
>         -----------
>
>         Jesus was accused by the Jews of blasphemy because he claimed to
>         be the Son of God.  He responded by referring to Psalms 82.6 in
>         which persons who received the word of God were called gods.
>
>             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?  (John 10:33-36)

    Jesus pointed out to the Jews that their own scriptures testified
    that they are gods, unto whom the word of God came.
    
>         The Purpose of God's Creations
>         ------------------------------
>
>         Now, in understanding the context of the whole Bible, we are able
>         to understand the glorious purpose of God's creations.
>
>         We are the literal children of God.  Through obedience to His
>         commandments and repentance, we are to remove sin from our lives.
>         Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, his blood, our sins are
>         forgiven and we become clean.  We become heirs of God and joint
>         heirs with Christ.  We receive all that the Father has to give.
>
>         We become gods!
>
>         "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
>         is perfect."
>
>
>         Is This Blasphemy?
>         ------------------
>
>         The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, and in a similar vein many
>         Christians today accuse us of blasphemy because we believe we can
>         become gods.  In accusing us, they show their narrow vision of
>         the Father's plan.  As I have shown, the Bible teaches that those
>         who overcome sin will receive all things from the Father.
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that a child of God can become like
>         his or her Father?
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that those who will receive all things
>         will in fact receive *all* things?
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that if God withholds nothing, he does
>         in fact withholds *nothing*?
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that those who partake of the divine
>         nature of God do in fact partake of the *divine* nature?
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that those who become heirs of God and
>         joint heirs with Christ do in fact become *heirs*?
>
>         Is it blasphemy to believe that Jesus was serious when he told us
>         to become perfect?
>
>         I think not!

    Think of it for a moment. Isn't it a marvelous promise of the Gospel
    that God would give us all that He has, even an opportunity to become
    like him? We rejoice even more in the Gospel, and in our Savior, Jesus
    Christ, for having made this possible. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

	
	Hi Rich, 
		I hope it is all right if I add my 2 cents even
	though it may not be worth even that much.  
	
	I Really enjoyed that reply.  Even though it was not new
	information, it is always a treat to read the word of God.
	Spiritual food.  It was one of those I-wish-I-had-said-that
	notes.  Actually, I wish I could have.

	I wanted to just contribute two thoughts.  The first one is
	about the idea of "Fatherhood".  I have often marveled at how 
	the relationship with my son allowed me to understand so much	
	about the way my Father Loves me.  Being a father is one of the
	choicest experiences of my life and it has taught me so much.
	As imperfect as I am, I love my son more than life.  Of course
	I want him to grow up to be so much more than I am, and I know
	he will.  He has that option extended to him but he may not
    	as he is free to choose.  I have made provisions to give him as 
    	much as I can especially the priceless things that money can't 
    	buy like my time, my love, faith in God, as well as all the 
    	material things that Father has given me.  

	As imperfect as I am, if I can love my son this way then how much
	better can Father, who is perfect, love me?  He gave me the 
	matchless gift of His only begotten, atoning for my sins and
    	providing a way that I might be free from the two deaths.  But
    	this is, I believe, just the beginning not the end of his gifts to 
    	me (us).  The evidences of His love are too great and too many to 
    	ignore.  I am His son and it is so logical that He wants me to be 
    	like Him that I can not conceive of it being any other way.
      

	The other idea. I know how this may look to those who do not 
    	embrace this belief (that Father's children may become like
   	Him).  We must appear as the  meglo maniacs of all time having 
    	a power craving beyond	description and egos lager than life.  
    	To look at this idea unsupported by the rest of the essential 
    	precepts  may give one to think this. I can only speak for 
    	myself, of course, but I find the thought of me being a God as 
    	little more than a distant shining star to steer by.  It is 
    	probably expressing a manifest lack of faith, but for positive  
        reinforcement I just use the idea of making it back to see 
        father again.  To bask in the light of His love an simply be
	able to look upon Him is all the happiness that I am capable of
	comprehending at this time.  To make it back to Father is what
	I consider "saved".  All the rest will be nice. To be with my family
	will be wonderful.  To be a God?  I can not imagine that and as
	most Mormons I do not spend too much time planing "Godly deeds"
	but instead go forth "in great fear and trembling" trying to do
	the best I can with each day.   I have been taught that should 
	I be so blessed as to return to Father that it will in all likely-
	hood take millennia to progress to "Godhood" a position of ultimate
	service.


    
	I saw a news story about a church that was experiencing unprecedented
	growth here in the Phoenix area.  It was expounding a "new concept
	of Deity".  The idea that God was really, after all, within each of
	us.  "We are God".   People interviewed outside the chapel were 
	very enthusiastic.  Why can people who claim to be Gods now receive
	public acclaim but the Mormons who preach possible eventual godhood
	receive so much animosity?  Can someone help me understand this?
 
    	In His Love,
    	-gary

    I liked the last two replies very much.  I have only one small comment to
    make.  It seems to me that one objection that non-LDS use to try and
    knock down the 'becoming as our Father in Heaven' concept, is that they
    claim that that would make us equal with God, or in other words, we would
    take his place, or share power with him.  They do not realize that though
    we may become as he is, he is still our God and Father, and we will always
    be his children.  He is continualliy growing in Glory and increase
    through his posterity.  When we "make it", that will have heaped great
    glory upon him.  This notion is similar to that which we find in our
    earthly families.  A man may be a poor working man his whole life, but
    though his son may become a great and successful business man, the father
    is still the father, and is (should be) honored and respected by the son.

	Chad

RE:Note 134.16 by ZEKE::LEIGH

    Hi Chad,

    I agree with your response. It does seem, that to say 'we will become
    as God' shocks the traditional Christian senses. If your response is in
    fact the true LDS tenet, then I have little issue with it. It sounds
    more semantical than anything else. Is there some reason why the title
    'children of God' or 'sons/daughters of God', which seems more Biblical,
    is not used? Even Jesus declares Himself as 'the Son of God'.

    Here's an interesting perspective that I'd like someone to comment on
    who may hold to the position that we will share an equal position with
    God the Father:

         "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall
          the Son also Himself be subject unto Him [God the Father]
          that put all things under Him [that includes you and me]
          that God [the Father] may be all in all."
                                            1 Cor. 16:28

         "But I would have you know that the head of every man is
          Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the 
          head of Christ is God [the Father]."
                                            1 Cor. 11:3

    It would seem to me, that though we inherit a divine nature, there
    will still be a order of subjectivity in the Kindom of God.

    Charlie

RE: < Note 134.17 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON "Stand fast in liberty." >

Hi Charlie,

>    It would seem to me, that though we inherit a divine nature, there
>    will still be a order of subjectivity in the Kindom of God.

From what I know, this has always been the case according to Mormon 
doctrine. As Chad has said, we will always be the children of God, and 
He will always be our Father. No matter what. Even if we inherit *all* 
that the Father hath, this relationship will never change.

>    Is there some reason why the title
>    'children of God' or 'sons/daughters of God', which seems more Biblical,
>    is not used? Even Jesus declares Himself as 'the Son of God'.

The teaching that we have the possibility to become 'gods' serves to
explain a number of things that the more readily accepted teaching
that we are 'children of God' does not. 

1) If we are literally 'children of God' as the scriptures indicate,
then we do have a 'divine nature.' Mormon doctrine gives this idea
meaning and explains its purpose - information which I am grateful to 
have.

2) The following is just speculation on my part, but I think that from
our point of view, i.e. that of earth-bound humans, the status of one
who *has* received even a small measure of all the Father hath *would*
seem to be a god. Thus when Joseph, Brigham, etc. received revelation
about our nature and destiny, they justifiably perceived a situation
where the difference between heavenly beings and us was very much
greater than the difference among heavenly beings. Just what exactly
the differences and relationships are among heavenly beings we do not
know for sure, except that we do know that God is the Eternal Father,
Jesus is the Son of God, we also are children of the Father, and that
that will never change. 

RE: Note 134.17 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON "Stand fast in liberty."


   Hi Charlie,


   I think Kevin responded to your input, but I'd like to  throw in my
   2 cents worth also.

>    Here's an interesting perspective that I'd like someone to comment on
>    who may hold to the position that we will share an equal position with
>    God the Father:

   I don't think you'll find such a person in this conference.  I have never
   heard even a hint of teaching that we will ever share an equal position
   with God the Father, the Most High God.  In my understanding, this is not
   to say that after working and increasing in capacity and glory through
   (probably) billions of years, that we won't come to occupy a position of
   glory and power equal to that now enjoyed by God our Father; however, by
   that time, He will also have continued to progress and increase and will
   thus remain "ahead" of those with less "experience".  In fact, as has been
   stated earlier, much of the work we do will add further glory to Him. We
   will always worship and honor Him as our father, our creator.

   Thank you for your comments and inputs.

   Dave H.

Re .19

As a point of clarification for the non-LDS following this discussion.

>   however, by
>   that time, He will also have continued to progress and increase and will
>   thus remain "ahead" of those with less "experience".

Dave was not saying that God progresses in knowledge or power, because we
believe and the scriptures clearly teach that He knows everything and has all
power.  God "progresses" (if we may use that term) in his creations.  We believe
that He has created so many worlds that we can not count them all and that his
acts of creation will go on and on and on forever.

Allen

(Nice to hear from you, Charlie!  I always enjoy and appreciate your comments.)

    RE .20
    
    Exactly.  Thanks, Allen.
    
    Dave

    RE: The ever-expanding God!
    
    I'm glad that that was clarified. ;) 
    
    It would seem to me that if God were increasing in knowledge,
    wisdom, power that this would imply a point were God was limited
    in those attributes, or a finite as opposed to infinite God.
    And yes, I would have to disagree.
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
    
    Charlie

    In my view, we, as LDS, need to be careful not to come across as
    though we have some kind of complete understanding of the nature
    of God. His ways are our not man's ways, and his understanding is
    not man's understanding. He is infinite, we are not. While we believe
    we know a few things about God that may not be understood by some
    others, we do not have a complete understanding, yet. How can we?
    It is much like me trying to explain the physics of nuclear fusion to
    my three year old son. He wouldn't understand it if I tried. We
    are not yet ready to understand completely God's nature. But we
    can be grateful that we do understand a few basics:
    
    - God is the Father of our spirits, and that is why he is called
    Heavenly Father.
    
    - God has a glorified physical body of flesh and bones.
    
    - God created man in His own image.
    
    - God has established a plan for us to receive all that He has and to
    become like Him, if we are faithful. 
    
    To go much beyond the basics we do know, and to speculate on what
    things may or may not be like hereafter may be interesting to ponder,
    but is just speculation.
    
    Regards,
    Rich

    It is difficult to find information in this notes conference,
    the responses being 600 lines in some cases. 
    Somewhere I read the name Elohim, who is that?
    

Elohim is the name that LDS commonly use to refer to God the Eternal Father.

Notes 4.1 and 4.2 explain that we believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ,
and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct glorified personages and are
one in unity and purpose; they comprise one Godhead.  Elohim is the Hebrew
word used in Genesis to mean "God" (it actually means "Gods").  We use it as
a colloquial name for the Father.

>    It is difficult to find information in this notes conference,
>    the responses being 600 lines in some cases. 

Some of our responses are pretty long, and I'm one of the worst offenders.

If you haven't already used them, you might try using key-words to locate
notes on particular topics.  See note 1.7 about that.  Also, you can do a
DIR/TITLE="...", where the ... represents a word or phrase of interest to
you.  The DIR command will give you a list of the notes having that word
or phrase in the titles.  Finally, note 3 is reserved for questions from
nonmembers about words and phrases that we use; so far no one has posted
any questions, but I'm hoping people will begin to use that note.

Allen

    RE: God having a body of 'flesh and bone'.
    
    I know that this has been addressed somewhere in here, so a pointer
    would be appreciated. I'll save comment for that topic.
    
    Thanks,
    Charlie

See notes 4.1 and 4.2.  Note 97 is also discussing the Godhead, but it doesn't
presently have any comments about God's body.  Since all of note 4 is
"read-only", note 97 would be an appropriate place for your comment.

Allen

    
    re .25
    
>                                                      Elohim is the Hebrew
>word used in Genesis to mean "God" (it actually means "Gods").  We use it as

    Actually, I think you'll find the word in more than just Genesis.....
    Elohim is indeed the Hebrew plural of Eloah (sp?). It first appears
    in Genesis 1 -"In the beginning God [Elohim] created....."
    
    Paul V

Re 38.7

>These Scriptures [verses from the Book of Mormon that talk of the Father,
>the Son, and the Holy Ghost and say they are one God] were easy to locate.
>They were found by looking in the 
>index of the Book of Mormon.  So if I was a person seeking the Mormon God, 
>I would come to the conclusion that there was One God:  The Father, Son and 
>Holy Ghost, based on the above Scriptures and several others that I chose 
>not to enter due to space.

Hi Leza,

If you do only a cursory reading of the Book of Mormon, you might conclude
that the three members of the Godhead are one personage, but if you read
the Book of Mormon in more detail and in context with the Gospel as a whole,
it is very clear that the three are not one in person but one in some other
way.  Please keep in mind, Leza, that the verses you quoted said the three
were "one God" but they did not say *how* they were one.  Because of your
background and your preconceived notion of God, you interpret the phrase
"one God" to mean one in person.  However, that is only your interpretation.

In order to find out the true meaning of the phrase, we must study the Book
of Mormon as a whole and study it in context with the Bible, D & C, and
P of G P.  If we do this, it is very clear that the three are separate in
person but one in unity, goals, etc.

When a person characterizes the Godhead as being "one God" we must understand
what attributes of God are being characterized.  Is the person referring to
the person of God?  Is he or she referring to the wisdom of God?  The knowledge
of God?  The purposes?  The commandments?  We can't just assume that the
person of God is being characterized.  Through study of the scriptures and
taking the context of the Gospel as a whole, we can begin to understand what
attributes are being characterized in the phrase "one God".

One of the best scriptures that teaches the "oneness" of God is the following:

    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.

    And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may
    be one, even as we are one:  (John 17:20-22)

It is obvious that Jesus didn't want his disciples to be one in person
but one in other attributes, such as purpose, action, obedience, etc., and
those verses say that is how Jesus and the Father are one.

Nephi saw the birth of Christ in vision.

    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*!  Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy
    father saw? (1 Nephi 11:20-21, emphasis mine)

Since the context of those verses is the birth of Jesus, we understand that
the attribute being given is the person of the Godhead, and it said that
Jesus was the Son of God, that is, he is separate in person from the Father.

I have discussed this topic in more detail, from a Biblical viewpoint, in
notes 4.1 and 4.2.

Allen

Re .24

>    It is difficult to find information in this notes conference,
>    the responses being 600 lines in some cases. 

We do tend to get "long winded"....

I'm trying to keep keywords assigned to each note, and I've found them helpful
to me in locating particular topics.  Also, I've found a DIR/TIT=
useful.

Allen

Re 38.7

>"There is no greater blessing that can come then the blessing of birth.  
>One third of the hosts of heaven, because of rebellion, were denied that 
>privilege, and hence they have no bodies of flesh and bones, that great 
>gift of God.  (Doctrine of Salvation, V1 page 16) 
>
>Would that include the Holy Spirit?

A good question.  So far, God has not revealed whether or not the Holy Ghost
will at some time receive a glorified body of flesh and bones as both the
Father and Jesus presently have.  I personally think He will, but I have
no idea how that event would happen, and my statement does not imply that
the Holy Ghost would have to be born in to mortality, die, and be resurrected.
Please keep in mind that my statement is pure speculation and not based on
scripture in any way.  

Allen

Re 38.7

>Is there a contradiction?:  "It is clear that the Father is a personal 
>being, possessing a definite form, with bodily parts and spiritual 
>passions... We affirm that to deny the materiality of God's person is to 
>deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole, an immaterial body cannot 
>exist."  (Articles of Faith, page 41)
>
>Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit be a God?  He is immaterial -- according 
>to the above quote, then, the Holy Spirit cannot exist.

We believe that spirit is material not immaterial, but spirit matter is more
refined and pure than earthly matter.  

    There is no such thing as immaterial matter.  All spirit is matter, but
    it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

    We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that
    it is all matter.  (D & C 131:7-8)

Please keep in mind that the Bible does not teach that spirit is immaterial;
that is only tradition from the Catholic church.

We believe that the Father is God and has a glorified body of flesh and bones.

We believe that Jesus prior to his birth of Mary was God and had a spirit
body.  We believe he is God today and has a glorified body of flesh and bones.

We believe the Holy Ghost is God and has a spirit body.

Apparently, having a glorified body of flesh and bones is not a requirement
for a personage to be God.

Allen

Re 38.7

>Since it is clear that only God the 
>Father had a body at the creation, why didn't He say, "let us make man in 
>My image" rather than "our" image?

First a point of clarification to the non-LDS reading this note.  In making
that statement, Leza is taking the LDS view of God.  That is, she is saying
"Since it is clear from the LDS view that only God the Father had a body
at the creation..."  Her statement does not imply that she herself believes
that the Father had a body at the creation.

We LDS believe that the Father does have a glorified body of flesh and
bones, and that at the creation, He was the only member of the Godhead
with such a body.  However, Jesus also had a body at the time of the
creation, but not a body of flesh and bones.  His body was of spirit matter,
but it was a body none the less.  (We believe that spirits are composed of
matter which is of a different material than the matter of this physical world).

Jesus explained to the brother of Jared that at the time of creation, we were
created after the image of his spirit body.

    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)

Thus, we realize that man was created in the image of the glorified body
of flesh and bones of the Father, and also in the image of the spirit body
of Jesus.  We need to keep in mind that "image" does not mean an exact
duplication of matter but resemblance in terms of having similar form and
shape.  Thus it was proper for God to say we were created in "our" image.

Allen

Re 38.7

>If God the Father was once a man, why isn't that 
>fact clearly spelled out in D & C? 

The D & C doesn't contain all revelations given to Joseph Smith and later
prophets; nor have we ever claimed that it did.

Allen

    Where do spirits come from?  Who created your spirit?
    Who created my spirit?
    
    I understand that Mormons believe that they become Gods, all things 
    being in order of course.  I believe God creates people's spirits
    and I am sure you will say the same, but I am truly confused after
    reading all that has been written, as to whether we are praying
    to the same God. 

RE: Note 134.36  BUFFER::ROHNERT

Hi!

You raise a number of issues with remarkably few words (for this
conference at least ;-). Let me take a stab at a few of them, while 
trying to be as succinct as I can.

>    Where do spirits come from?  Who created your spirit?
>    Who created my spirit?
    
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.

Now when you say: 

>    I understand that Mormons believe that they become Gods, all things 
>    being in order of course.  

you are making a huge leap forward. Let me describe a little of what
happens in between, and then address this statement. 

We were born into mortality on this earth in order to learn and grow
and progress, and to prepare for returning to Heavenly Father. This is
the purpose of life. We are given free agency and a chance to show
whether we will choose right or wrong. This is essential, because
growth depends on choices. 

Sometimes we choose to sin. Sin causes a 'spiritual death,' meaning
that we are prevented from ever returning to Father, unless an
atonement is made. Christ overcame spiritual death by virtue of his
atoning sacrifice. He took upon himself the sins of the world. Thus
forgiveness is a gift available to all, but it is conditioned upon
faith in Christ and repentance for sin. Also, Christ overcame physical
death by virtue of his resurrection. We too will all be resurrected -
immortality is a gift given to all, without conditions. 

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. 

However, Father, in his infinite mercy and love, wants even *more* for
us. Through obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the
ordinances of his Gospel, we can learn to achieve a real unity of
purpose with Father and Jesus, and be given "all that the Father
hath," meaning *all* that the Father hath. 

This doesn't mean being set up as tin-plated dictators, eternally
kibitzing about how to run the universe. It means to be so close to
Father and Jesus Christ in unity and purpose and devotion that we can
*continue* to progress in joy, knowledge, and glory forever. And God
the Father will continue to be our God and our Father forever. 

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. 

>    I am truly confused after
>    reading all that has been written, as to whether we are praying
>    to the same God. 

God is God; there is but one Heavenly Father who is the Supreme Being, 
and so shall it be forever. He hears my prayers and he hears yours and
he hears everyone's. We all have equal access. Ask *him* if this is 
true or not and see what he says.

Best regards,
/kevin

Kevin,

Thank you for your response, you have cleared up a lot of questions 
and I need only a little fine-tuning on my questions.
When you say

>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.

then is it true that you are saying

God = Lord = Supreme Being = Heavenly Father?



And I have to ask this,

>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. 

Can we hold out for more?

Re .38

In case you haven't already them, I thought I'd mention that note 4 discusses
the topic of your questions.  You might want to read the following replies:

   4.41  Our Freedom to Choose
   4.42  The Book of Mormon Teaches Free Agency
   4.43  Latter-day Revelation: Spheres of Freedom
   4.44  The Fall of Adam
   4.45  Born in Sin
   4.46  The Atonement of Jesus Christ
   4.47  What Happens to Children Who Die?
   4.48  The Book of Mormon Teaches The Salvation of Children
   4.49  We are Adopted to Christ
   4.50  Where Did We Come From?
   4.51  Jesus is the Firstborn
   4.52  War in Heaven
   4.53  Spirit Brothers and Sisters
   4.54  Latter-day Revelation: Where did we come from?
   4.55  Why are we Here?
   4.56  The Book of Mormon Teaches A Probationary State
   4.57  The Spirit World
   4.58  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
   4.59  The Resurrection of Everyone
   4.60  The Judgment
   4.61  Many Mansions
   4.62  Latter-day Revelation: Salvation for the Dead
   4.63  Latter-day Revelation: The Three Degrees of Glory
   4.64  Latter-day Revelation: Outer Darkness
   4.65  Hell
   4.66  Latter-day Revelation: Eternal Marriage
   4.67  The Plan of Salvation
   4.68  Latter-day Revelation: The Glory of God

Allen

    Hi Allen,
    
    I think I've read most of those 4.* notes (an excellent piece of
    work, I might add) as well as many other notes in this conference.
    Rather than draw the wrong conclusions from what I have read by
    non-Mormons as well as Mormons, I thought I would ask the questions
    that I did.  The response from Kevin was excellent, but created
    a new question:
    
    Is God = Lord (old Testament) = Supreme Being = Heavenly Father?
    
    

Re .40

This note is dedicated to a discussion of Leza's next to last installment of
her report, and this discussion is beginning to be a more-general discussion
of God.  So, I hope that nobody minds, but I'm going to switch to note
97 and continue there.  Note 97 is a discussion of the Godhead.

Allen

Re 38.7

>"Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this universe as far as he is 
>above us, and if he should transgress the laws given to Him by those above 
>Him, he would be hurled from His throne to Hell, as was Lucifer and all his 
>creations with Him." (From a letter dated June 16, 1844 from Sarah Scott in 
>Nauvoo)


First, I don't know who Sarah Scott was and whether or not the quote from
her is reliable.  The part I want to focus on is her supposed statement from
Joseph Smith that *if* God should sin, He would cease to be God.  Please keep
in mind, Leza, that she and supposedly Joseph Smith did not say that God
could sin, only that *if* He sinned.  I agree.  *If* God were to sin, He
would cease to be God; however, the scriptures plainly teach that God is
perfect and can not and will not sin!


>"Resolved, 2nd, Inasmuch as .... Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and many other 
>official characters...have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the 
>church, such as plurality of Gods above the God of the Universe, and his 
>liability to FALL WITH ALL HIS CREATIONS..." (Article from the Nauvoo 
>Expositor dated June 7, 1844)

The Nauvoo Expositor is hardly a reliable source of what Joseph Smith taught.
It was very anti-Mormon and obviously biased against the Church.  Its founders
and editors were men who had been excommunicated from the Church for
transgression and who were fighting the Church and bringing the mobs against
the Church.  In evaluating historical evidence, it is important that we
consider the bias of the evidence as we decide about the reliability and
importance of the evidence.

As given by you, the quote from the Expositor states that Joseph taught that
God had the ability to commit sin.  I don't think that is an accurate statement
of what Joseph taught; I expect that the paper was either referring to the
statement referred to by Sarah Scott that *if* God were to sin, he would fall,
or it intentionally distorted the statement to make it seem like Joseph taught
that God could fall.


>(Which contradicts Matt. 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father 
>which is in heaven is perfect.)

Joseph Smith did not teach that God could sin, that is, that God was not
perfect.  Anyone who has studied the teachings of the Prophet knows that
Joseph did teach that God was perfect, all knowing, all powerful, all seeing.

Allen

Re 38.7

>It is taught today, that Jesus is Jehovah, and is the first born of the 
>spirit children by Elohim.  "Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits 
>who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of 
>them." (Articles of Faith, page 472-73)  Yet we just saw in Mosiah 3:5 that 
>Jesus IS the Father of heaven and earth and the Creator of everything from 
>THE BEGINNING.  How can this be?

As one (the eldest or first born, in fact) of the spirit children of the
Father, Jesus had reached the stature of Godhood.  That is, he was a member
of the Godhead even though he was still a spirit child of the Father.  Acting
under the direction of the Father, he created the earth, universe, etc.
Because of his role as creator, the scriptures refer to him as the father of
heaven and earth.


>"Jesus is greater than the Holy Spirit, which is subject unto him, but his 
>Father is greater than he."  (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of 
>Salvation, I, 18)  Yet Jesus has always been affirmed to be equal with the 
>Father.

Even Jesus himself considered himself as being subject and obedient to the
Father.  Jesus said he did nothing except what was commanded of the Father.
He said "Thy will be done".  The equality of Jesus with the Father is in
terms of unity and purpose.


>"The divinity of Jesus is the truth which now requires to be 
>reperceived...the divinity of Jesus and [the divinity] of all other noble 
>and saintly souls, insofar as they too, have been inflamed by a spark of 
>Deity - insofar as they too, can be recognized as manifestations of the 
>Divine."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 347)
>
>Jesus has been brought down to being another "noble and saintly soul".

First, the statement you gave from page 347 was from Sir Oliver Lodge not
Joseph Smith.  Next, let's take a closer look at the full statement.

Lodge (a non-Mormon) is writing about Christ being born in a miraculous birth,
dying, and being resurrected, because he was the Son of God.  Then he said

    Whatever happened to him may happen to any one of us, provided we attain
    the appropriate altitude; an altitude which, whether within our individual
    reach or not, is assuredly within reach of humanity.  That is what he
    urged again and again.  "Be born again."  "Be ye perfect."  "Ye are the
    sons of God."  "My Father and your Father, my God and your God."  The
    uniqueness of the ordinary humanity of Christ is the first and patent
    truth, masked only by well-meaning and reverent superstition.  But the
    second truth is greater than that--without it the first would be
    meaningless and useless,--if man alone, what gain have we?  The world
    is full of men.  What the world wants is a God.  Behold the God!--[That
    is, the God, Jesus Christ.]

    The divinity of Jesus is the truth which now requires to be reperceived,
    to be illumined afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified 
    by the wholesome flood of scepticism which has poured over it: it can be
    freed now from all trace of groveling superstition; and can be recognized
    freely and enthusiastically:  the divinity of Jesus, and [the divinity]
    of all other noble and saintly souls, insofar as they, too, have been
    inflamed by a spark of Deity--insofar as they, too, can be recognized as
    manifestations of the Divine.--Notes by Elder B. H. Roberts.

Leza, rather than bring Christ down to the level of mankind, Lodge was
bringing those of us who are righteous *up* to the level of Christ.  The
statement by Lodge is a beautiful statement that Christ is God and is divine,
and that we can become like him.

Allen

Re 38.7

>[after having given Biblical passages that say the Holy Ghost is omnipresent,
>omniscient, and omnipotent] The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead.  He has
>a body of spirit.  His 
>body of spirit is in the form and likeness of a man.  He can be ONLY IN ONE 
>PLACE AT A TIME, but his influence can be every place at the same time 
>(emphasis mine).

Note 4.2 has already explained that Biblical verses refer to the Holy Ghost
as both a personage and an influence.

          Form Of God The Holy Ghost
          --------------------------

          The Bible speaks of the Holy Ghost in the context of both a
          personage and an influence.  Let us examine some of those verses.

          Personage in Godhead:

              But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no
              thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye
              premeditate:  but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour,
              that speak ye:  for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy
              Ghost.  (Mark 13:11)

              And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove
              upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are
              my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.  (Luke 3:22)

              For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye
              ought to say.  (Luke 12:12)

              And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
              Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;...But the
              Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
              in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all
              things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
              (John 14:16,26)

              For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to to us, to lay
              upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts
              15:28)

          It is clear that these verses refer to the Holy Ghost as an
          intelligence because of the personal attributes given to the Holy
          Ghost and the use of personal pronouns:  "the Holy Ghost shall
          teach you", "he shall be with you".

          Other verses, however, speak of the Holy Ghost as an influence
          that is without form and can fill us.

          Influence:

              For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
              drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled
              with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.  (Luke
              1:15)

              And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the
              salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and
              Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:  (Luke 1:41)

              But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come
              upon you:  and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
              Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
              uttermost part of the earth.  (Acts 1:8)

              Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye
              rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Acts 4:1)

              But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly
              into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on
              the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55)

          It seems apparent, therefore, that the phrase "Holy Ghost" is
          used in two ways, a personal name for an intelligent and distinct
          member of the Godhead and a name for an influence that "radiates"
          from the Holy Ghost.  In understanding the difference between the
          Holy Ghost and his influence, we might consider the analogy of a
          light bulb.  There is one light bulb having a distinct form and
          shape, but the influence of the bulb is without form or shape and
          fills the surrounding area.  We must depend upon the context of
          the verses to help us understand how the phrase is being used in
          particular verses.

          The Bible also uses the name "Holy Spirit" to refer to the Holy
          Ghost and his influence.  The name "Holy Spirit" is synonymous
          with the name "Holy Ghost".

Re 38.7

>"The head God organized the heavens and the earth.  I defy all the world to 
>refute me.  In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens 
>and the earth.  The head of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you 
>take (that) view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty..."  
>(Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:475-76)
>
>(Mosiah 3:5 says Jesus created everything from the beginning.  Who in the 
>world (s) is the head God?)

Leza, Strongs says that Eloheim means Gods (plural), especially the "Supreme
God".  Joseph Smith used the word 'head' instead of the word 'supreme' and was
referring to God the Father.  Joseph said that God the Father organized the
heavens and the earth.  Wait a minute, you say; the Bible says Christ did
that, and you Mormons say Christ and the Father are separate.  We say, that's
right, Christ did create the heavens and the earth, but under the direction of
the Father.  Thus, whether you say the Father created the universe or the
Son did it depends upon your perspective.  As an analogy, we can say that
Ken Olsen makes computers, or we can say that Joe Blow who works in
manufacturing makes them; both statements are correct, depending on your
perspective.

You are concerned that the book of Moses talks about one God creating the
earth while the book of Abraham talks about a council of Gods doing it.  Both
are correct, depending on the perspective of the author.  Moses was looking
at it from the perspective of Jehovah being the God of the Hebrews as they
returned to the Holy Land.  Abraham had a more global view and was looking
at it from the perspective of the Godhead.

The Hebrews under the Law of Moses had a very narrow vision of God, due to
their wickedness.  To them, Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was their only God, even
though in the heavens there is the Godhead consisting of three separate
personages.  Their perspective was narrow.  Today, we live under a different
dispensation and have a wider view of God, and we are concerned with all
three members of the Godhead.

Allen

Re 38.7

>Now, if God is flesh and bones, how can he begat spirits?  The Bible says 
>that "like begets alike".  This has always puzzled me.  That an exalted 
>MAN, makes spirit babies?

It puzzles me, too.  We need to keep in mind that God isn't just flesh and
bones like we are, but he is glorified and perfect as Christ was/is when
he came forth from the tomb.  We also need to keep in mind that spirits have
form and shape and are composed of matter which is real stuff but different
than the matter of this earth.  I don't understand why resurrected parents
have spirit-matter babies instead of resurrected-matter babies, but I accept
it on faith.  I don't understand how Christ's living a perfect life and giving
his life on the cross can remove my sins, and I accept that on faith too.

>It seems so foolish to me that you can believe 
>in fleshly gods making spirit babies, but you can't believe in worshipping 
>an almighty God forever and ever.

Your use of the word 'fleshly' implies that we believe God is mortal and
imperfect, so I'll just mention again for emphasis that God has a glorified
and perfect body of flesh and bones, a body that can't die, doesn't get sick
or hurt in accidents.  

I don't understand your statement that we don't believe in worshipping an
almighty God forever and ever, because we do, and I think you know we do.

Allen

>There is no Biblical basis for men becoming Gods - nor a Book of Mormon 
>basis for that matter.

Leza,

As I have explained in note 4, the Bible does hint at it and does give
a background for it; granted that the Bible does not spell it out clearly.

The Biblical and Book of Mormon prophets were under different dispensations
than we are today.  Our dispensation is called "The Dispensation of the
Fulness of Times", and in this dispensation God is revealing things long
held from the earth.  This is why the Doctrine and Covenants is so important,
because it contains some of the revelations given in this dispensation that
clarify and enlarge upon the truths from the Bible and the Book of Mormon.


>The Bible also does not teach that after men die they turn into angels.  
>Yet when Moroni died and was resurrected he came back as an angel?  Why is 
>he not to be a god?

He is.  Your concern is over word definitions.  The word 'angel' is just a
name for (a) spirits that haven't come to earth yet, (b) spirits that are
waiting for the resurrection, and (c) resurrected persons such as Moroni.
In reading the scriptures, we have to use context to determine what "type"
of angel is being discussed.

Allen

Re 38.7

>Historic 
>Christianity has always affirmed that "within the nature of the one Eternal 
>God, there are 3 persons:  the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit."

*******

For the most part, these creeds--the most famous of which is the Nicene
Creed--were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following
centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead.  Consequently, it is
highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs
of the New Testament church.

"The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity," notes
J. R. Dummelow, "was the result of a long process of development, which
was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later."  As Bill
Forrest remarks, "To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to
being Christian, is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New
Testament was completed thousands of Jesus' followers were in fact not really
Christian.'  

  -- "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First Century Christianity", by Daniel
     C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Ensign March 1988, p. 8.  

     Daniel C. Peterson is an instructor of Arabic at BYU.  Stephen D. Ricks
     is associate professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at BYU.

    re -.1
    
    And who is J.R. Dummelow?
    

The Rev. J. R. Dummelow is the author of "The One Volume Bible Commentary",
The Macmillian Company, New York, 1970 printing.

The article also referred to Bill Forrest who is the author of "Are Mormons
Christians?", Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series, Mormon Miscellaneous,
Salt Lake City.