God loves the world so much or is it so little?

[Shawn Henry]

A God came down.

And you say I have a dizzying intellect, while your intellect musters up 12 letters.

[Wolfwoman]

People have been arguing about it since the time of Jesus. Was he God? Was he the son of God? Is there one god or more than one god?

I doubt we’ll all agree on it anytime soon.

...but shouldn't the BoM have cleared up the issue. Is not the language clear?

Beats me. I didn’t write the rules. I just live here.
The lectures on faith explain it pretty clearly. At least it explains that the father and the son are two different personages. And it explains the Holy Spirit. Good enough for me, until I gain greater knowledge.

[Shawn Henry]

Beats me. I didn’t write the rules. I just live here.
The lectures on faith explain it pretty clearly. At least it explains that the father and the son are two different personages. And it explains the Holy Spirit. Good enough for me, until I gain greater knowledge.

Yeah, I'm grateful for the Lectures on Faith, but at the same time they seem kinda like the latter-day version of the Nicene creed. You know, a whole bunch of words written cryptically without just saying it. Why couldn't they just say it. Beats me too. Two personages initially would lead one to think two persons, but the more I think about it the more it seems like the only reason to write two personages is to say they're the same person, or else you would just write two persons. Idk, we'll figure it out.

[SJR3t2]

Imagine it's your Birthday and I claim to be your best friend. I then tell you that I won't be coming to your birthday party, but that I love you so much that I'm going to send someone else to your birthday party and he will bring you a present. That's a deep love, right?

God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son....so wait, God so loved the world that he never left his throne to do anything for it himself? That doesn't sound like love. If Rangers can lead the way, you'd think God could!

However, if we let the BoM interpret John 3:16, we learn that God himself came down from his throne.

"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."

God so loved the world that he himself came down and because he took upon him flesh, he is called the son while he is in the flesh.

The God that so loved the world is Jesus Christ himself. He sent himself down.

Modalism. Knowing that Elohim, the Father, Himself came down as the Son, makes Him a merciful Elohim instead of a vengeful Elohim. Also in JST Genesis it's Abraham, the Father, carrying the cross instead of the Issac the Son / flesh teaching modalism. I have this in a chiasmus here https://seekingyhwh.org/torah/.

[SJR3t2]

People have been arguing about it since the time of Jesus. Was he God? Was he the son of God? Is there one god or more than one god?

I doubt we’ll all agree on it anytime soon.

...but shouldn't the BoM have cleared up the issue. Is not the language clear?

Lectures on Faith https://seekingyhwh.org/lectures-on-faith/ especially lecture 5 https://seekingyhwh.org/lectures-on-faith/5th make it even more clear.

[SJR3t2]

People have been arguing about it since the time of Jesus. Was he God? Was he the son of God? Is there one god or more than one god?

I doubt we’ll all agree on it anytime soon.

...but shouldn't the BoM have cleared up the issue. Is not the language clear?

Beats me. I didn’t write the rules. I just live here.
The lectures on faith explain it pretty clearly. At least it explains that the father and the son are two different personages. And it explains the Holy Spirit. Good enough for me, until I gain greater knowledge.

Definition of personage teaches modalism. [1828 Webster’s Dictionary, PERSONAGE: 1) EXTERIOR APPEARANCE 2) CHARACTER ASSUMED 3) CHARACTER REPRESENTED] see Lectures on Faith 5 https://seekingyhwh.org/lectures-on-faith/5th/

[ransomme]

Who was the Savior praying to here then?

"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34)

“Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

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:

3rd Nephi 19:19-20
19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said:
20 Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world.

Your questions don't change the language of the BoM. I would first accept it at face value and then determine how it is true rather than saying it isn't true and here are the reasons why.

To answer your question, Jesus was veiled like everyone else. At what point he learned his true identity isn't clear.

Here is a JST change you might not be aware of:

Luke 10:22 22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

It was changed to this: "All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it."

When you leave out Gospel concepts like oneness, progression, etc. it becomes easier to read things 100% literally and come to similar conclusions as you.

Although one would still have to disregard a number of inconvenient passages, or come up with wild explanations for them

[Reluctant Watchman]

A God came down.

And you say I have a dizzying intellect, while your intellect musters up 12 letters.

Because the concept isn’t that complex. Jesus was essentially a God.

[Telavian]

I think it makes far more sense to think of God and Jesus as the same person. Not some kind of eternal family situation where the dad has 150 billion kids he fathered through intercourse with a massive harem of wives.

However with that said it is so difficult to break people out of the mental traditions that they have already formed. This is why false doctrine is so deadly in God's eyes. It poisons the mind and won't let go.

[tmac]

I think this is interesting subject matter to discuss, and these are interesting questions to consider, but anytime such discussions become dominated by people who act like they have all the answers figured out, and a corresponding over-confidence in their position(s), I lose interest pretty quickly.

I could be wrong brother, that for sure, but I don't think I shouldn't be confident. If there are holes in my logic or things I haven't considered, I would love to hear them.

Shout out to GodisLove, she actually responds listing counter points, I respect that. That is the whole point of productive dialogue. There's no productivity in responding with emotion or witless humor like RW.

Not only is this "interesting subject matter", but it's also our most core belief, the one we should put the most effort into.

For casual bystanders, and especially those who have observed and participated in these discussions for years, it starts to become painfully obvious when people seem to want to stake their territory, exercise dominion, and dominate the conversation. And I don’t want to pretend that I have never done the same thing. But at this point, when those kinds of issues are at play, and fairly obvious from the outset, it has a tendency to dampen my interest in participating. At this point I’m perfectly content to just sit back and watch the show.

[Shawn Henry]

Definition of personage teaches modalism. [1828 Webster’s Dictionary, PERSONAGE: 1) EXTERIOR APPEARANCE 2) CHARACTER ASSUMED 3) CHARACTER REPRESENTED] see Lectures on Faith 5 https://seekingyhwh.org/lectures-on-faith/5th/

Which means one person can have two personages, which matches the definition of the words in English.

[Shawn Henry]

When you leave out Gospel concepts like oneness, progression, etc. it becomes easier to read things 100% literally and come to similar conclusions as you.

Although one would still have to disregard a number of inconvenient passages, or come up with wild explanations for them

None of those other concepts have to be left out whatsoever. Believe the text itself.

I was just finishing a Hemlock Knots video where Mark Curtis says the BoM teaches Jesus is the Father and that there is no other way to justify the text.

[Shawn Henry]

For casual bystanders, and especially those who have observed and participated in these discussions for years, it starts to become painfully obvious when people seem to want to stake their territory, exercise dominion, and dominate the conversation. And I don’t want to pretend that I have never done the same thing. But at this point, when those kinds of issues are at play, and fairly obvious from the outset, it has a tendency to dampen my interest in participating. At this point I’m perfectly happy to just sit back and watch the show.

Well, I would actually very much appreciate being checked if I'm wrong or if I'm not nice and I would definitely love feedback if anyone feels I'm just being overbearing. That's never my intent. My version of communication is such that a back and forth is necessary in order to move the conversation forward.

You would think lawyers would love a friendly back and forth debate. Far better than a courtroom full of lies, deceits, and accusations, right.

[marc]

Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

To the OP: The Hebrew translation renders this as masculine plural, but what is your understanding of "us" and "our" in this passage? Thanks for your time.

[Shawn Henry]

Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

To the OP: The Hebrew translation renders this as masculine plural, but what is your understanding of "us" and "our" in this passage? Thanks for your time.

That is a good point, but ultimately I would say we don't know who "us" is and therefore it's speculation and that's assuming a correct translation, which is why I give supremacy to the BoM.

Marc, I'd love your feed back on why the following JST change:

Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

It was changed to this: "All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it."

[marc]

Years ago, I created a post here citing many scriptures from the standard works that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. I'll try and dig it up when I get home from work. In the meantime, you have supported from the BoM as well as I have in the past that Jesus/Jehovah is both the Father and the Son. That out of the way, there is no scripture to my knowledge that says that Jesus/Jehovah does not also have a Father. But I can show from many scriptures that Jesus/Jehovah acknowledges His Father, and that others have seen both or have heard both distinctively. For the sake of brevity and because I'm on my cellphone at work, I'll share one example:

2 Nephi 31:14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. 15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

In this example, we have both individuals referencing the other, thus witnessing to two different people. Perhaps you will interpret this as one person referring to himself in some metaphysical sense, but I do not. They are two separate, individual Gods.

[BigT]

I think it makes far more sense to think of God and Jesus as the same person. Not some kind of eternal family situation where the dad has 150 billion kids he fathered through intercourse with a massive harem of wives.

However with that said it is so difficult to break people out of the mental traditions that they have already form. This is why false doctrine is so deadly in God's eyes. It poisons the mind and won't let God.

It poisons the mind for generations and generations.

[marc]

I think it makes far more sense to think of God and Jesus as the same person. Not some kind of eternal family situation where the dad has 150 billion kids he fathered through intercourse with a massive harem of wives.

However with that said it is so difficult to break people out of the mental traditions that they have already form. This is why false doctrine is so deadly in God's eyes. It poisons the mind and won't let God.

Alternatively, considering "Father" and "Son" as name-titles with endless posterity of adopted offspring also makes perfect sense.

[Telavian]

In this example, we have both individuals referencing the other, thus witnessing to two different people. Perhaps you will interpret this as one person referring to himself in some metaphysical sense, but I do not. They are two separate, individual Gods.

I understand where you are coming from with this example. However, it is inherently ambiguous.

Take for example a pyramid shape. It is a triangle, a square, and a pyramid totally depending on how you are looking at it.
We each personally have multiple titles depending on the situation or the context. Therefore, referring to the Son and Father in the same situation doesn't mean they are separate.

[marc]

In this example, we have both individuals referencing the other, thus witnessing to two different people. Perhaps you will interpret this as one person referring to himself in some metaphysical sense, but I do not. They are two separate, individual Gods.

I understand where you are coming from with this example. However, it is inherently ambiguous.

Take for example a pyramid shape. It is a triangle, a square, and a pyramid totally depending on how you are looking at it.
We each personally have multiple titles depending on the situation or the context. Therefore, referring to the Son and Father in the same situation doesn't mean they are separate.

I do not believe it is inherently ambiguous at all but rather, simple and straightforward.

[Telavian]

Alternatively, considering "Father" and "Son" as name-titles with endless posterity of adopted offspring also makes perfect sense.

This opens the massive can of worms that the Nauvoo Expositor wrote about. Suppose you have a chain of Gods and one God a million levels up makes a small tweak that completely invalidates everything done at our level. What does that mean for us? How can we trust anything after that point?

If however every level is a proper subset or completely subsumed by the level above then what is the point of the additional God levels? Our God has to operate according to every level above so this all is moot.

[marc]

Alternatively, considering "Father" and "Son" as name-titles with endless posterity of adopted offspring also makes perfect sense.

This opens the massive can of worms that the Nauvoo Expositor wrote about. Suppose you have a chain of Gods and one God a million levels up makes a small tweak that completely invalidates everything done at our level. What does that mean for us? How can we trust anything after that point?

If however every level is a proper subset or completely subsumed by the level above then what is the point of the additional God levels? Our God has to operate according to every level above so this all is moot.

I guess if you give deference to an editorial over the standard works.

[Telavian]

I guess if you give deference to an editorial over the standard works.

Comments like this frankly are quite irrelevant. You are sidestepping the entire question asked so you don't have to address it.
I have shown in articles and videos how I think Christ is both the Father and the Son which the scriptures literally say. I understand that other scriptures are less direct and can mean other things. You however are focusing on a handful of scriptures and ignoring many others.

You may not agree however the scriptures have to be internally consistent otherwise why should we believe them?
Based on my pyramid example earlier. If the scriptures said God is a triangle in some places, and other places he was a square, and others a triangle and square. Then wouldn't it be logically consistent to conclude he was a pyramid?

[marc]

I respectfully reject your pyramid example. Furthermore, the scriptures are consistent to me about this subject. But I am nobody so I'm okay with everyone rejecting my explanations.

[Telavian]

I respectfully reject your pyramid example. Furthermore, the scriptures are consistent to me about this subject. But I am nobody so I'm okay with everyone rejecting my explanations.

If we are honest then I think far more people reject my understanding of things vs yours.

However, I do agree with you that we are all ultimately nobodies and are all trying to figure things out the best we can. Eventually we will talk to God and everything will be cleared up in an instant.