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

[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.

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.

Which brings us back to the basics: repentance, obedience, love, brotherly kindness, etc.

[Shawn Henry]

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.

We're all nobodies with you Marc. These interactions can be edifying though, I know I learn from them. It is also healthy to have your beliefs examined and tested.

I notice you didn't respond to that JS change. I would submit that if our learned understanding is true, there would be no reason to make that change.

I admit that the Father talking to the Son gives an initial impression that they are two different people, but when he says he's both, why let our limited understanding deter us from what he has said?

There's a lot of good information out there showing that our spirits are always connected to heaven or even you could say that a portion of our spirit is still in heaven, in a manner of speaking. If God is intelligent enough for his spirit to connect to the whole universe, he can certainly talk to a portion of himself that is veiled. In a sense, we are all dual beings, right? The flesh represents a side of us that is not at all our true spiritual self, it is veiled and can't sense the veil. It might even be the case that our spirit is the one that is feeding us all things spiritual like our dreams, visions, and promptings to the degree that our own spirit resonates with the holy spirit. (That's another topic though)

[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.

We're all nobodies with you Marc. These interactions can be edifying though, I know I learn from them. It is also healthy to have your beliefs examined and tested.

I notice you didn't respond to that JS change. I would submit that if our learned understanding is true, there would be no reason to make that change.

I admit that the Father talking to the Son gives an initial impression that they are two different people, but when he says he's both, why let our limited understanding deter us from what he has said?

There's a lot of good information out there showing that our spirits are always connected to heaven or even you could say that a portion of our spirit is still in heaven, in a manner of speaking. If God is intelligent enough for his spirit to connect to the whole universe, he can certainly talk to a portion of himself that is veiled. In a sense, we are all dual beings, right? The flesh represents a side of us that is not at all our true spiritual self, it is veiled and can't sense the veil. It might even be the case that our spirit is the one that is feeding us all things spiritual like our dreams, visions, and promptings to the degree that our own spirit resonates with the holy spirit. (That's another topic though)

Sorry, just got home from work, been busy with errands and honey-dos. I did ask for your patience until I could properly reply. I'll look for your JS quote.

[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.

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."

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus/Jehovah is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ/Jehovah also has a Father of whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ/Jehovah (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

[Telavian]

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ also has a Father to whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

This is one complication with modern Mormonism. Shifting of names, titles, and meanings based on context, moon phase, and what the scholar had for lunch.

Father means God, but also means creator of Son, and also Son. Son means Christ and also Father, and also created by Father. However, it doesn't in other contexts. This is the same thing as "divine investiture" which basically means whatever the scholar wants it to mean at the time.

[marc]

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ also has a Father to whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

This is one complication with modern Mormonism. Shifting of names, titles, and meanings based on context, moon phase, and what the scholar had for lunch.

Father means God, but also means creator of Son, and also Son. Son means Christ and also Father, and also created by Father. However, it doesn't in other contexts. This is the same thing as "divine investiture" which basically means whatever the scholar wants it to mean at the time.

Wait until you dive into Isaiah!

[marc]

You don't really need scholars. Without prophets/scriptures, biblical scholars would have nothing. But take Peter's name as one example and you could probably write a book about it by yourself.

[Telavian]

Wait until you dive into Isaiah!

I completely agree. I did study Isaiah exclusively for about 6 months however relied heavily on Gileadi's apocalyptic commentary.

[4Joshua8]

Wait until you dive into Isaiah!

I completely agree. I did study Isaiah exclusively for about 6 months however relied heavily on Gileadi's apocalyptic commentary.

I think I'm going to study Isaiah and the book of Enoch at the same time to see what can be gleaned that way.
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe004.htm

[Shawn Henry]

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus/Jehovah is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ/Jehovah also has a Father of whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ/Jehovah (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

But are we then back to the problem with Jesus saying he is "the very Eternal Father" and him saying he is from everlasting to everlasting, when he is actually only just attaining unto Godhood? If there are countless Gods before him, we would have to omit that the scriptures don't indicate that at all.

This traditional mormon view of a series of Gods who were once regular people also would mean that ultimately, we are all just the same intelligences who started out at the bottom with no one ever being at the top, meaning somewhere long in the past were the first who attained unto what we think of as Godhood, who grew in intelligence without anyone above them.

Both sides have a downside, so to say. If God was always God and was never at the bottom, then he is not the same species as us.

My personal conclusion, though not set in stone, is that we are all intelligences growing in intelligence and that many have indeed made it to the top, so yes, Jesus has a Father, but that Father is not God the Father, Jesus is God the Father. Jesus has likely been born thousands of times and has had thousands of fathers. As far as heavenly parents go, we have all likely had thousands of fathers and mothers who are currently in heaven, most of whom are likely well ahead of us.

No matter the side, there's issues.

[marc]

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus/Jehovah is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ/Jehovah also has a Father of whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ/Jehovah (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

But are we then back to the problem with Jesus saying he is "the very Eternal Father" and him saying he is from everlasting to everlasting, when he is actually only just attaining unto Godhood? If there are countless Gods before him, we would have to omit that the scriptures don't indicate that at all.

This traditional mormon view of a series of Gods who were once regular people also would mean that ultimately, we are all just the same intelligences who started out at the bottom with no one ever being at the top, meaning somewhere long in the past were the first who attained unto what we think of as Godhood, who grew in intelligence without anyone above them.

Both sides have a downside, so to say. If God was always God and was never at the bottom, then he is not the same species as us.

My personal conclusion, though not set in stone, is that we are all intelligences growing in intelligence and that many have indeed made it to the top, so yes, Jesus has a Father, but that Father is not God the Father, Jesus is God the Father. Jesus has likely been born thousands of times and has had thousands of fathers. As far as heavenly parents go, we have all likely had thousands of fathers and mothers who are currently in heaven, most of whom are likely well ahead of us.

No matter the side, there's issues.

I do see your point and I appreciate your conundrum. If we were to consider such a multi-tiered system, whatever it is, the next logical step is to rend the veil as Nephi, Moses, and the brother of Jared did and have it revealed to each of us individually. I have been where you are with such questions. I have concluded that the best way to find out and the quickest way to find out is to do the things Jesus said to do in order to rend the veil and obtain your own testimony of Jesus. And that essentially brings us back to what I would say is the fulcrum of the matter:

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

[SJR3t2]

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.

Exactly, modalism.

[SJR3t2]

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.

Majestic plural.

Elohim is a singular and a majestic plural at the same time. Majestic Plural is is a forgotten grammar applied to kings and queens, and those of high offices such as judges. Majestic Plurals are used to refer to a single person in a high office.
https://seekingyhwh.org/2023/06/18/maje ... -singular/

[SJR3t2]

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.

There are tricky verses on both sides of this argument such as "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" - Yeshua

[SJR3t2]

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."

Great catch, brother! To this, I will reiterate that Jesus/Jehovah is both the Father and the Son (clarified by Abinadi and also brother of Jared) as I believe you and I are agreed on, but where I differ as I've already explained is that Jesus Christ/Jehovah also has a Father of whom He is begotten. That is the simplicity of it. Now if you can appeal to the scriptures and demonstrate that Jesus Christ/Jehovah (as both Father and Son) does NOT also have a Father, we can pursue this further.

Father is an idiom for leader, and son an idiom for follower. And don't we all want a leader who does what he says?

[tmac]

This discussion would make Jewish rabbis envious.

[Cruiserdude]

This discussion would make Jewish rabbis envious.

[Ymarsakar]

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?

The Book of Mormon was written by Nephites and others like the Jaredites, who had their civilization fall to ashes. They were warning us not to repeat their mistakes. And what did their mistakes arise out of? Their world view and interpretation, their thoughts.

So this book was translated by the power of god but all the words in it did not come from god. It came from mankind not godkind, thus there are issues that people need to critically address first.