Is our understanding of The Trinity and Godhead correct?

[_BrotherofJared]

...(snip)...It appears to me, that the 'Trinity' does not include Jesus [The Lord of Hosts] (the first born of all creation). It appears, that the SON of the Trinity, is in fact, The Lord God Almighty.

The 'TRINITY' [Father, Son and Holy Ghost] is scriptural. The big question, is, "Who is 'The Son' of this trinity?" Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Isaiah 44:6 states that 'God' is made up of only TWO persons/figures [The Godhead]. John 5:37 states that there is a 'Father' who cannot be seen by ANY man, nor has His voice EVER been heard by ANY man. Revelation 1:6 states that God HAS A FATHER. In Mark 1:11, Jesus and His disciples heard a voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Who spoke these words? John sees The Lord God Almighty and Jesus in Revelation chapters 4 and 5. Stephen sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). 'Connect the dots.'

I know I'm probably late on this, but what I can gather up to this point, with the insistence that "Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35)" that the intent here is to prove there is a 4th member of the God head. You've already connected the dots you just want to convince others you're right. I mean if no one has seen the Father nor heard his voice at any time, then that must be a person in the Godhead that has never appeared ever, and the others that we do hear, like the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism and see like Stephen seeing Christ standing on the right hand of his Father when he was stoned to death, then the only conclusion is that there must be a God that we have neither heard nor seen and the Son must be the Father and "his son" is Jesus Christ.

This, of course, assumes that we have the scripture right. It assumes you interpreted the translation correctly, which means the translator interpreted it correctly (which we can't tell since we have no original documents to test this against). You really put a lot of weight on that one verse John 10:35. That part is in parenthesis which is a comment on the side included by Christ himself in his speech or added by some scribe... We don't know, but we do know this... scripture can be broken. The Bible is an excellent example of broken scripture.

But lets consider your theory. What good would it do to have a god that has neither been heard or seen? That would be like the god of the agnostic wouldn't it? Like, that god wouldn't even been there. So, why include him?

I personally interpret Isaiah 44:6 as being the same person.

[_Charity1]

Peace Again. Obviously Mormon Discussion has other than Mormons interested enough to use their time on this. I have come to the conclusion after much scripture study ( mostly Mormon canon) see Ether 4:12, D&C 36:2 , 1 Nephi 13:37, 2 Nephi 11:7 and many many more that there is a God with a body and a spirit, there is one God and his most common name is Jesus Christ ( in the english language) and his spirit or intelligence, his father most commonly known as the holy ghost or Jehovah is The Father Son and Holy Ghost which is one God. A man as we know it since taking a body . One eternal round, would seem he has done this for his creations ( us ignorant ungrateful children) probably for each earth he has created with his children's help. His injunction in the first commandment being ingnored by the only true and living church is why I no longer teach what I believe to be false doctrine. If we would just believe his words in the prayer he gave us we can have that peace that surpasseth all understanding.

[_Zadok]

I have come to the conclusion after much scripture study <snip> that there is a God with a body and a spirit.

I'm glad that is working for you. When I try to 'humanize' God into a body and make him a Mormon Grampa-God, then it falls apart for me. Because in total, that God is bat-shit crazy.

[_ludwigm]

Peace Again.

Welcome on the board, Charity 1.
(Your name without the number is well known for most of us --- but this is another old story.)

... there is one God and his most common name is Jesus Christ ( in the english language) and his spirit or intelligence, his father most commonly known as the holy ghost or Jehovah is The Father Son and Holy Ghost which is one God.

This description seems to be a little eclectic. (Eclecticism is a kind of mixed style in the fine arts: "the borrowing of a variety of styles from different sources and combining them" - Hume 1998.)

Would You be so kind to expound it a little more? Anyway, the OP is The Trinity and Godhead ...
Especially I think about the two (I said TWO, a little more than one god...) shining "personages" (implied to be Jesus and God the Father) appeared to Joseph Smith, during one of the seven version of the First Vision.
Or, about the role of Elohim and Jehovah during a certain ceremony --- which You know and we all know and can not be detailed here.

The stained glass picture of the First Vision can be seen here, on Telestial.

[Guest]

deleted

[_Bazooka]

His injunction in the first commandment being ingnored by the only true and living church is why I no longer teach what I believe to be false doctrine.

What? You don't teach something official? This path in itself leads to apostasy.

Hi Tom (I can call you Tom, right?)

If the Church officially teaches something that is known to be untrue, is it apostasy to teach it?

[_Zadok]

If the Church officially teaches something that is known to be untrue, is it apostasy to teach it?

Zookie... If the 'truth' is not faith affirming, or could be construed to be opposite of what has been taught in the past, then under the doctrine espoused by Boyd Kenneth Packer, (some truths aren't very useful), then the Church is perfectly within its rights to teach a known lie. This is called... "Lying for the Lord" and has been a practice of the so-called One True Church for over 170 years!

This practice of Lying for the Lord might be slightly related to recent essays and defections by members from the Church, but we will never change or admit that.

Any other questions?

[_SteelHead]

[_Zadok]

There you go again, just cherry picking contradictions, to prove a point!

[_subgenius]

Oddly enough 2 and 2 equals 4

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... revelation
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Revelation
http://mormonbeliefs.org/prophets/continuing-revelation
http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... r-day.html

note also the following AoF:

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


(for what it is worth, I found Orwell's 1984 to be not so prophetic, i remember that year quite well - and it was nothing at all like the book))