Why People Are Leaving The LDS Church

[onefour1]

When Joseph Smith had his first vision, two beings appeared before him, the Father and the Son. Joseph later taught that both the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bones but the Holy Ghost did not have a body of flesh and bones but was a personage of spirit. So we see from this that there are three distinct personages in the godhead (D&C 130:22). If you read the King Follett Discourse, it is clear that the Father was an exalted man before this world was created. He was an immortal resurrected being who had already received his exaltation. Because he was immortal, he was inseparably connected to his body and could never die again. For this reason, he needed another to come to earth to lay down his life for the sins of the world. This other person was Jesus Christ who had not yet received a body and had not yet been resurrected to immortality. So according to the revelations of God to our beloved prophet Joseph Smith, God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct personages who sit side by side in the heavens above on their immortal thrones of glory. Their spirits are separate and their resurrected, exalted bodies are separate. They are only one in that Jesus and the Holy Ghost will only do the will of the Father. They are one is purpose and glory.

Wow! You dutifully parroted the narrative we all know and grew up with. Big problems with that narrative though.

1. JS's 1832 account of the first vision (the only one in his handwriting) claims only one being appeared not two.
2. Section 130 is only claimed to have come from JS, he purposefully omitted in the 1844 D&C.
3. The HG being a personage is directly contradicted by the Lectures on Faith that JS established as canon, for the very reason of describing the Godhead.
4. The Father is a personage of spirit as expressed in the Bible, the BoM, the 1835 +1844 D&C.

By rejecting the God the scriptures declared to the saints, he turned them over to another god and tested them with non-scriptural teachings like section 130 and a random speech at a funeral, which they lapped up without question.

Trust scripture my friend, not alleged speeches at funerals.

By the way, in the BoM, Jesus repeats over and over again that he is the very Eternal Father, and he also repeats that he is the both the Father and the Son, and not with lower case f's like he's the junior father, they're upper case.

1. The 1832 account of the first vision does not claim that only one being appeared but merely mentions one being.

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <​Lord​> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord16 and he spake unto me saying Joseph <​my son​> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <​way​> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <​behold​> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <​my​> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <​hath​> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles17 behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <​clothed​> in the glory of my Father18 and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart"

Joseph here mentions that he saw the Lord and that the Lord spoke unto him. He doesn't mention that that was the only being or that there was only one. He simply recalls his experience with the Lord Jesus in this account. Joseph could simply have skipped over the introduction of the Lord Jesus by the Father and went straight to what the Lord told him.

Regardless of whether you trust any of the Joseph Smith accounts, Stephen in Acts 7:55-56 saw Jesus standing of the right hand of the Father:

Acts 7:55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

This is evidence that Jesus is not the same being as the Father. Other evidence is that if they were the same being, why would Jesus need to pray unto himself?

John 17:1
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

Why would Jesus need to go unto the Father if he is the Father? And why would Jesus say the Father is greater than himself?

John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Why would Jesus say, "not my will but thy will be done"? If they are the same being, why do they have separate wills?

Luke 22:42
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

If the oneness of God is that they are the same being, how is it that we can also become one even as Jesus and the Father are one?

John 17:20-23
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


Does this mean to you that we will become the same being? Why does Jesus sit down on the right hand of the Father if he is the Father?

Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Hebrews 1:3
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;


2. Joseph Smith in his King Follett Discourse teaches that the Father is an exalted resurrected immortal being. As a resurrected immortal being He would have a resurrected body of flesh and bones the same as Jesus received after being resurrected. This also aligns with the following scripture:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

If the Father were nothing but spirit then he would not have a fulness of joy.

3. I am sure that Joseph Smith over a process of time gained a greater understanding of the character of God. It may be that at the time the Lectures on Faith were given, he probably did not have a complete understanding of the nature of each member of the godhead. Even though he received visitations, as far as I know he did not have physical contact. He probably had his own ideas of each member of the godhead. He knew from the New Testament that Jesus was resurrected and returned and showed his resurrected body to his disciples as mentioned in Luke 24. But by the time he gave the King Follett Discourse he fully understood the character of both the Father and the Holy Ghost in April of 1844. At the time he instructed Orson Hyde in regard to the teachings in Doctrine and Covenants 130, he fully understood the character of the Holy Ghost. If all of us along with Jesus Christ had need to resurrect, why wouldn't the Father also have a body of flesh and bones? In the 1950s the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C due to the contradiction of the Father being a spirit and later being a resurrected being per the King Follett Discourse. I view it strictly as Joseph gaining further light and truth over time being a prophet of God.

4. John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I can also say that I am a spirit and that would not be false. I am a spirit with a body. God also, in my estimation, is a spirit with a body. I don't think I have to rid myself of my body to worship in spirit and truth. Resurrected beings more than mortal beings are more spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15:42
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

If the Father is not a resurrected being, then why was it necessary that Jesus and the rest of us be resurrected to have an immortal body of flesh and bones? If the Father is the best of all beings, why would any of us need a resurrected body? It seems very logical that Jesus became what his Father is and sits beside him on his throne. It is logical that if resurrection is given to all that it must be a good thing and that it is likely that the Father himself has an immortal body of flesh and bones. Why would the Father need a personage of spirit in the godhead if he is nothing but a spirit? Was he too busy to do the job and needed another like himself? That seems incredible for a being who is all powerful and omnipresent. The LDS position of the character of God make much more sense than the concept you espouse. Finally, going back to Hebrews 1:1-3:

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

If Jesus is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, wouldn't that mean that God the Father has an immortal body of flesh and bones the same as Jesus? This is speaking of Jesus after he received the brightness and glory of his Father. They are the express image of each other. How can Jesus be the express image of the Father if the Father has no body? Again, Jesus is portrayed as separate being who looks exactly like His Father and sits down on his right hand after his resurrection. I think Joseph Smith was correct in his later teachings of the character of the Father that he is a resurrected immortal being who also has a body of flesh and bones. Thus they are the express image of each other.

[Erastothenes]

The people are leaving the church because the church is leaving the people. Those of us who built the church through the 60s, 70s, 80 and 90s are being discarded by RustyCorp. LLC as they look for the younger, more beautiful girlfriend.

[onefour1]

If the Lectures on Faith teaches that God doesn't have a body but is only a spirit, and if God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, then wouldn't God the Father, who is Jesus Christ, have a resurrected body of flesh and bones as taught in Luke 24? God the Father couldn't be just a spirit if he is the same being as Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is a resurrected immortal being with a body of flesh and bones at the time the Lectures on Faith were taught. Go figure?

[JSmith]

#1 reason is idolatry...

but for a few it's an awaking to the awful situation.

After that take your pick
*Exposed via COVID
*Alignment with UN
*Lacking clear teaching and conviction concerning wokism,lgbtq+, etc
*Empire building, misusing tithing funds
*Church Inc departure from the doctrine of Christ and the mission of the body of Christ.
"Church Inc's past sins haunting them

*Lack of the literal Word of God/revelation. Instead, declarations are made that determine doctrine with words like "I felt that the Lord..."
*No more open manifestation of God's power through mighty miracles through the church leaders
*Mormon culture taking precedent over small and simple doctrines. ("more or less than this cometh of evil")

What open manifestations? Joseph smith translated the gold plates from behind a curtain. The plates were hidden under a cloth. The book of Abraham translation was an utter lie from the beginning. Not a public manifestation of the gifts of a prophet. Angelic appearances were all personal claims of a private appearance not a public manifestation. In other words, what we were told were great manifestations of gods power were stories of guardian angels made up like the treasure guardians of the palmyra money digging magic cults. It was a fraud upon Christianity from the beginning.

“ Joseph smith translated the gold plates from behind a curtain”

You misspelled “from a stone he failed repeatedly to find treasure with placed in a top hat”

[JSmith]

That is not a Bigotite, err Brighamite (of which I am not)approach. That is the complete scripture narrative. Your reading is taking 2 or 3 verses out of context.

Just like later Jews tried to change their religion into a monotheistic paradigm, so are you with the BoM teachings.

I'm not taking anything out of context. That's how the English reads. And it's not 2 or 3 verses, it's throughout the BoM.

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,

I find verse 5 very telling. The flesh becoming subject to the spirit means that the flesh is the Son portion and the spirit is the Father portion. It could just as easily read: And thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or in other words, the Son becoming subject to the Father.

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Ether 4:12 For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Alma 11:38,39
Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

There are more too.

Personally, I don't think that you are understanding these things in Spirit.

Am I correct in saying that your view is BoM supercedes all everything?

Given that I suppose that you don't need to resolve why Jesus' original 12 did not have/believe in a trinitarian world view. And why Jesus' own words also oppose the Trinity.

Why is the 1832 vision account strictly trinity influenced?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

[JSmith]

I'm not taking anything out of context. That's how the English reads. And it's not 2 or 3 verses, it's throughout the BoM.

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,

I find verse 5 very telling. The flesh becoming subject to the spirit means that the flesh is the Son portion and the spirit is the Father portion. It could just as easily read: And thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or in other words, the Son becoming subject to the Father.

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Ether 4:12 For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Alma 11:38,39
Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

There are more too.

Personally, I don't think that you are understanding these things in Spirit.

Am I correct in saying that your view is BoM supercedes all everything?

Given that I suppose that you don't need to resolve why Jesus' original 12 did not have/believe in a trinitarian world view. And why Jesus' own words also oppose the Trinity.

Sean Henry is correct.

And one cannot say that trinitarianism is not found in the New Testament. Very concept of it is a rooted in the New Testament and the language reflects that.

For me, it is very clear that Joseph Smith had zero problem with the doctrine of the trinity , and neither did anybody in his family, until he was establishing himself as a religious leader.

Why is the 1832 vision account clearly trinity influenced… and, so clearly doctrinally in line with other contemporary religious ecstasies of his day?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

[ransomme]

I'm not taking anything out of context. That's how the English reads. And it's not 2 or 3 verses, it's throughout the BoM.

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,

I find verse 5 very telling. The flesh becoming subject to the spirit means that the flesh is the Son portion and the spirit is the Father portion. It could just as easily read: And thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or in other words, the Son becoming subject to the Father.

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Ether 4:12 For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Alma 11:38,39
Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

There are more too.

Personally, I don't think that you are understanding these things in Spirit.

Am I correct in saying that your view is BoM supercedes all everything?

Given that I suppose that you don't need to resolve why Jesus' original 12 did not have/believe in a trinitarian world view. And why Jesus' own words also oppose the Trinity.

Why is the 1832 vision account strictly trinity influenced?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

The trinitarian view is you interpretation. It is not strictly so at all.

IMO you grossly misinterpret the concept of oneness

Talking your logic, when Jesus asks if we could be one with Him as He is one with the Father, then we are all God.

[ransomme]

Personally, I don't think that you are understanding these things in Spirit.

Am I correct in saying that your view is BoM supercedes all everything?

Given that I suppose that you don't need to resolve why Jesus' original 12 did not have/believe in a trinitarian world view. And why Jesus' own words also oppose the Trinity.

Sean Henry is correct.

And one cannot say that trinitarianism is not found in the New Testament. Very concept of it is a rooted in the New Testament and the language reflects that.

For me, it is very clear that Joseph Smith had zero problem with the doctrine of the trinity , and neither did anybody in his family, until he was establishing himself as a religious leader.

Why is the 1832 vision account clearly trinity influenced… and, so clearly doctrinally in line with other contemporary religious ecstasies of his day?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

And there is a reason, why the Trinity wasn't invented by man until the 4th century. Christ didn't teach it, his disciples didn't teach it, and so on.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I think people who hold so strongly to the "Father, Son, HG, one God", skip a heck of a lot of scripture where it clearly represents them as distinct Beings.

[4Joshua8]

Personally, I don't think that you are understanding these things in Spirit.

Am I correct in saying that your view is BoM supercedes all everything?

Given that I suppose that you don't need to resolve why Jesus' original 12 did not have/believe in a trinitarian world view. And why Jesus' own words also oppose the Trinity.

Why is the 1832 vision account strictly trinity influenced?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

The trinitarian view is you interpretation. It is not strictly so at all.

IMO you grossly misinterpret the concept of oneness

Talking your logic, when Jesus asks if we could be one with Him as He is one with the Father, then we are all God.

Philippians 2:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.




Whether or not this scripture supports the Trinity, I don't know. But it definitely supports the position that we should think of ourselves as potential equals or peers with God, yet see ourselves in our humble state and make of ourselves lowly servants and obedient to God in all things.

[ransomme]

Why is the 1832 vision account strictly trinity influenced?

Lectures on faith, once accepted as revealed chemical scripture in the doctrine and covenants ,clearly states that there are only two members of the godhead… and that’s why it was removed from the D&C.

The book of Mormons theology matches much more closely to the contemporary understandings of God that existed in Joseph Smith time and place.

His theology clearly developed and changed over time. From a very clearly Trinitarian understanding of Christ until we get the king Follett discourse…which is entirely different and has no corollary in the book of Mormon, as written.

Even the testimony of the three witnesses includes a clearly Trinitarian profession:

“ And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

This reflects the same terminologies and understanding of God that was contemporary for American Protestantism

Add this to the testimony of the book of Mormon and God’s nature, and it becomes increasingly clear that trinitarianism in one way or another is the theology of the book of Mormon.

And it wasn’t that God was revealing more stuff to him overtime. Why would god reveal a vision of God in the book of Mormon that would be quickly replaced just a few years later?

Is God really so content with inconsistency that he would save the book of Mormon for more than 1000 years to be the “keystone” the restoration and have its very language used to describe Christ more closely match 19th century methodism than 20th or 21st century mormonism?

No, Joseph was using the world around him and his own ideas. Not revelation for much of it.

Of all of it, i think the only really sound true thing to come out of all of Joseph Smith’s work is the 1832 vision account. The only one that he wrote. And the only one which closely matches other cultural theophanies that took place during his day. Right down to the language he uses, it matches other accounts almost Word for Word.

It’s believe that he did have an experience. But that experience he clearly states he only saw “the Lord”In the singular. There was no two people in that division. And the lord forgive him of his sins.

So even the earliest known first vision account steers more towards contemporary trinitarianism found in the book of Mormon than later concepts of God.


The reason why I believe that the entire first version narrative was adapted later and Joseph Smith was innovating His own doctrine is the complete absence of the first vision from early criticism of the church. It doesn’t show up in anti-Mormon writings until after 1835.

It wasn’t used as a missionary tool.

The appearance of Christ and God the father as two physically separate beings is not used by any contemporary pastor or enemy of the church as a method of criticism from 1820 until the mid-1830s.

If this was such a revolutionary concept, why is it absent?

Or, why was it often conflated with the Moroni visit and called an “angelic visitation” by others before the churches in First Vision narratives were well-established

One writer pointed out that between 1820 and roughly 1840:

“ In all of the following, no mention is made of a first vision that can be distinctly separated from the later visit of Moroni, or no mention is made at all. Compare with the claim by Joseph that he was hotly persecuted and great men took note of an insignificant farm boy.

* All local newspapers
* Alexander Campbell (vocal opposition to Smith and Mormonism)
* E.D. Howe: 1834 Mormonism Unvailed
* J.B. Turner: 1842 Mormonism in All Ages
* John Whitmer History
* John Corrill 1839 History
* Sydney Rigdon
* Evening & Morning Star
* Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate
* Book of Commandments
* Book of Mormon
* Doctrine and Covenants
 
Notable Individuals who Reported the First Vision as an Angelic Visitation:

All of these notables were intimate acquaintances with Joseph Smith, were in the Church inner circle and held important Church office. From their writing it can be determined that they were unaware of the First Vision as a theophany. Nearly all other contemporary accounts and accounts up to the 1870s have the “first vision” as an angelic visitation among other angelic visitations. It carried the status of the “first” of many visions.
* Oliver Cowdery
* Martin Harris
* Orson Pratt
* Parley Pratt
* Orson Hyde
* William Smith
* Lucy Mack Smith
* George A. Smith
* Heber C. Kimball
* Brigham Young
* John Taylor (later changed)
* Wilford Woodruff

It’s not because it was “so sacred he never talked about it”…Because he openly talked about the gold plates and the angels that protected it..

(which was also a narrative he used around his treasure seeking and would blame the “treasure guardians”for moving treasure, when he failed to find it through the Seer stone. A narrative that shows up in the book of Mormon, and talking about treasures slipping into the Earth.)


It’s because he didn’t feel the need to update the narrative to bolster his position in the face of opposition and church crisis until the Kirtland event and later in Nauvoo.

So Joseph had ideas. He created those ideas over a period of time. And he modified his theology as he became more and more successful.

All of Mormon theology is a experiment in concept, innovation and adaptation.

The trinitarian view is you interpretation. It is not strictly so at all.

IMO you grossly misinterpret the concept of oneness

Talking your logic, when Jesus asks if we could be one with Him as He is one with the Father, then we are all God.

Philippians 2:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.




Whether or not this scripture supports the Trinity, I don't know. But it definitely supports the position that we should think of ourselves as potential equals or peers with God, yet see ourselves in our humble state and make of ourselves lowly servants and obedient to God in all things.

It doesn't, and I wouldn't get ahead of yourself. We may inherit all the Father hath with our Redeemer but only if covered by His grace. No other soul that has or will live on this Earth is a match for Jesus the Messiah.

There is a reason why the Trinity didn't appear until the 4th century. Because the teachings were corrupted and man invented it, along with other false doctrines.

[Shawn Henry]

If the Lectures on Faith teaches that God doesn't have a body but is only a spirit, and if God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, then wouldn't God the Father, who is Jesus Christ, have a resurrected body of flesh and bones as taught in Luke 24? God the Father couldn't be just a spirit if he is the same being as Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is a resurrected immortal being with a body of flesh and bones at the time the Lectures on Faith were taught. Go figure?

What does that even mean to be "just a spirit". Your phrasing implies limitations. There's no reason to imply limitations to a spirit. Change your understanding of a spirit and its power and the rest will fall into place.

God, as a spirit is the most intelligent being there is. He is so intelligent that he can instantly organize physical matter into any form he wants. He could instantly appear looking like anybody. He could appear in multiple forms at the same time, that's how intelligent he is. He could instantly appear in a resurrected body and instantly change to a mortal body. Just like you can go to your closet and put on any appearance, so can God.

Why would limit yourself to thinking that being imprisoned in one physical form is better than the freedom of having power over all forms? Imagine being told you had to go up to your closet to pick out a suit because you would be stuck in it for the rest of your life.

[Shawn Henry]

Jesus standing on the right hand of God

for my Father is greater than I.

Why would Jesus say, "not my will but thy will be done"? If they are the same being, why do they have separate wills?

Why does Jesus sit down on the right hand of the Father if he is the Father?

express image

You pose a lot of good questions, but I think they are based on a flawed understanding that we all grew up with.

None of us knows what all Jesus was trying to convey by saying he is on the right hand of the Father. It could simply be symbolic for saying he represents the Father in all things (because he is the Father).

The two different wills are not the different wills of two people. One is the will of the spirit and one is the will of the flesh. Jesus did the will of the spirit and overcame the flesh. The fleshly will was dominated by the spirit.

That is the process we are in. Our spirit is learning to dominate the will or the call of the flesh. Jesus is simply saying he has mastered this process.

His Father being greater than him simply means the spiritual is above the physical. What we truly are dwarves what we are in the flesh.

Receiving a fulness of joy is obtained by this process we are going through of overcoming the flesh. It is not being in the flesh, but rather obtaining mastery over it.

There is really no such thing as "a spirit within a body". Our spirits are not permanently trapped within our bodies, but rather our spirits are using our bodies to obtain mastery over them. Kinda like a person within a car who is simply using the car to its advantage. Spirits are above anything physical.

A resurrected body is simply one of many graduating tiers of accomplishment as our spirits progress in intelligence and learn to do more and more with their mastery over the physical.

Before the "express image" means anything secondarily, it primarily would mean the exact same image or rather the exact same person.

I know I'm speculating, but I trust the keystone of our religion and its description of God, not anything else that is below the standard that is the Book of Mormon.

[Silver Pie]

Some people are leaving the church because the church is leaving Christ’s gospel and His teachings. In order to keep their covenant with the Lord, they are no longer able to remain in said institution.

Bingo!

[Silver Pie]

https://www.tiktok.com/@shane_deconstru ... nHklf&_r=1

This guy sums it up pretty well!

Yes, he does.

[Silver Pie]

I think people who hold so strongly to the "Father, Son, HG, one God", skip a heck of a lot of scripture where it clearly represents them as distinct Beings.

I think "one God" =/= "one Being", and that's one place people get tripped up. They think "one God = one Being".

[RosyPosy]

I think people who hold so strongly to the "Father, Son, HG, one God", skip a heck of a lot of scripture where it clearly represents them as distinct Beings.

I think "one God" =/= "one Being", and that's one place people get tripped up. They think "one God = one Being".

Could it be possible that GOD: is a trio with one collective goal?

[Silver Pie]

Could it be possible that GOD: is a trio with one collective goal?

I think so.

I also think there's a Mother, a Father, and a Son - and that the Holy Ghost is the mind of God/akashic records/etc. and that when we hear the Holy Ghost (source of all knowledge and truth), it is our "higher self" tapping into the mind of God. In this sense, I don't think "mind" = something physical like a brain.

I honestly believe that we know so little about God, the heavens, and non-earth life that we probably can't wrap our minds around what's really there.

It reminds me of the poem about the blind men and the elephant.

[Silver Pie]

(My bold)
Attributed to John Godfrey Saxe at this site (I'd thought Rudyard Kipling wrote it). https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant

The Blind Man And The Elephant

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!

[Niemand]

As someone who grew up in another church, I tend to find Mormons really don't understand the Trinity at all. In it, God is supposed to be three persons and one person simultaneously. It is not polytheism either as the Muslims and Jews maintain.

We can argue about whether the Trinity is a false or true idea, but Mormons have to start from the point of view of understanding it, and many don't... including people here.

[Silver Pie]

... Trinity ... In it, God is supposed to be three persons and one person simultaneously.

That's how I have always understood it.

[gkearney]

Mormons believe in a corporeal Trinity, where the Father and the Son are one in spirit, mind, and purpose, yet have bodies. In this way, we are Trinitarians, similar to other Christian believers.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Mormons believe in a corporeal Trinity, where the Father and the Son are one in spirit, mind, and purpose, yet have bodies. In this way, we are Trinitarians, similar to other Christian believers.

Uh... no. One in spirit is worlds apart from the trinitarian viewpoint/belief of one being/entity. I know this may seem like splitting hairs to some people, but by mashing them into one you are able to promote things like there is no gender and justify all manner of limiting behaviors and beliefs.

[RosyPosy]

Mormons believe in a corporeal Trinity, where the Father and the Son are one in spirit, mind, and purpose, yet have bodies. In this way, we are Trinitarians, similar to other Christian believers.

Uh... no. One in spirit is worlds apart from the trinitarian viewpoint/belief of one being/entity. I know this may seem like splitting hairs to some people, but by mashing them into one you are able to promote things like there is no gender and justify all manner of limiting behaviors and beliefs.

I've always thought of God being a "team". With the Father as the leader.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I've always thought of God being a "team". With the Father as the leader.

It's shocking to see how similar that is to what Christ taught how they (the 12) should be One.