Talk:God in Mormonism

Godhead as a restoration of the original Christian doctrine

Drewbigs posted the following in this article under a new section that shares this talk topic's title:

"Mormons view their concept of the Godhead as a restoration of the original Christian doctrine as taught by Christ and the apostles. Elements of this doctrine were restored gradually over time to the prophet Joseph Smith, as is consistent with God's method of revealing truth "line upon line, precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10-13, D&C 98:12, see also 1 Corinthians 3:2). Mormons teach that in the centuries following the death of the apostles, views on God's nature began to change as a result of theologians who continued to develop doctrine despite not being called as prophets to receive revelation for the church. Mormons see the strong influence of Greek culture and philosophy (see hellenization) during this period as contributing to a departure from the traditional judeo-christian view of a corporeal, material God in whose image and likeness we were created. These post-apostolic theologians began to define God in terms of an immaterial divine substance, or ousia--a concept that found no backing in scripture, but closely mirrored elements of Greek philosophy such as Neoplatonism, which was known to have influenced many of the church fathers. Disagreement on how to define the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in the context of this divine substance finally culminated in a consensus reached at the council of Nicaea in the year 325, which officially defined God as a trinity of three persons sharing one divine substance. Mormons believe that the development process leading up to the trinity doctrine left it vulnerable to human error, because it was not founded upon God's established pattern of continued revelation through prophets."

In response to my repeated explained removal of this section, he left me the following note on my talk page:

Hi Jgstokes, the reason for my contribution in the God in Mormonism article is because currently the article strongly leans toward the view that J.S. was just coming up with this stuff on his own, and refining it as he went along. Since this is an article on Mormonism, it think it's extremely appropriate to at least mention the heart of the matter from the Mormon point of view, which is that this doctrine was a restoration of the original Christian principle through revelation to a prophet--and that revelation doesn't come all at once, but over time.

Also, to say that until 1835 the Mormon view was similar to trinitarianism is very misleading because the driving concept behind the trinity is the divine substance that is shared between the three persons. Mormons have never come close to classifying diety in terms of this divine substance, but see it as an example of "philosophies of man mingled with scripture"--which is exactly why they believe in the need for a restoration.

So let me know the problems you saw (placement, length, quality, etc.) so I can do some revamping. I will definitely include a better explanation next time, until yesterday I was pretty ignorant of the whole talk and history capabilities of Wikipedia so it's been a good learning experience.

thanks."

Since he feels so strongly about including this section, I thought I'd post it here for discussion until we reach a consensus decision. My primary concerns with it as it now stands is that it is very lengthy and wordy and at least once uses another WP page as a reference, rather than simply linking to it. I'd welcome other thoughts on this section. Please help me fine tune this so that we can include it in the article. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Is it just me, or does "restoration of the original Christian doctrine" require first an understanding of who God is, according to rabbinic Judaism of the 1st century? Assuming of course that Christianity only "originally" differed in Jesus' self-identification with the unique, sovereign, non-human, all-powerful, unchangeable, only-uncreated, (etc) creator and sustainer of all creation? I guess my question is: what were the ASSUMED characteristics of God in Judaism of the 1st century, and in what ways did Christianity alter that, and in what ways did it NOT alter that? Washi (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Introduction - confusing

As I began to read the article I was struck with the first referenced statement: "This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; in Mormonism, the three persons are considered to be physically separate beings, or personages, but united in will and purpose.[1]" This statement is supposed to show a distinction, but I cannot see one. The orthodox concept of the Trinity clearly states that the Trinity is three separate, distinct beings. The difference is that they are one substance or essence, which is a foreign concept in Mormonism.

I would propose the something like the following: "This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; within Mormonism, there is no substance or essence that makes them one God; they remain three separate Gods."

Thoughts? --^StormRider 04:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it! I see no reason to discuss this change, as it could be classified as a minor edit. If someone else has a problem with this rewording, they can discuss it here. In the meantime, I see no reason why this revision cannot immediately be incorporated into the article. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with parts of this change. Mormon scripture and doctrine does not affirm a belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "three separate Gods" or "three deities," as the article currently says. They believe that they are one God. They believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are three, separate beings which are one God. That is how their scriptures articulate it. Never do their scriptures speak of "three gods." Not once. Ever. They always speak of these three beings as "one God." Every single time. See, for example:

• 3 Nep. 11:36 "[...] the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one."
• Mos. 15:4 "they [i.e. the Father and the Son] are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."
• Alma 11:28-9 "Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek, God's messenger] answered, No."
• D&C 20:27-8 "[...] the Holy Ghost, [...] beareth record of the Father and of the Son; 28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."
• Moses 1:20 "this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory."

If you look in Mormon scripture for a description of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as "three Gods," you will not find it. You will only find descriptions of them as "one God" and "separate beings." To characterize Mormons as believing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" are "three gods," then, is inaccurate. They believe that they are three separate beings, but one God. There is a difference between the meaning of the word "being" and of the word "God." Wrad (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I might word it, to further clarify the difference between traditional trinity:

• "This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; within Mormonism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not said to be one in substance or essence; instead, they remain three separate beings, or personages, completely united in will and purpose as "one God."

Wrad (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Wrad. I like the rewording on that. Go for it! --Jgstokes (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

some people feel that the title "God in Mormonism" is deceptive because not all "mormon" churches (which believe in the Book Mormon or other named "Record of the Nephites") have such a concept of God, so I also feel that "God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is more precise. Do you also agree? For example the former RLDS, now the Community of Christ and also the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Fettingite and Elijah Message Churches believe in the Book Mormon, but also this book has not such a concept or view of the Lord God. It is the LDS edition of their "Doctrine and Covenants" book and maybe partly the "Book of Abraham" of their "Pearl of Great Prize" book which is or are the basics of their (LDS) concept of God. We feel like the original title mislead people to the thinking that all churches of the "mormon spectrum" have such a view.--Parsi123 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Original article title deceptive

Hi there,

some people feel that the title "God in Mormonism" is deceptive because not all "mormon" churches (which believe in the Book Mormon or other named "Record of the Nephites") have such a concept of God, so I also feel that "God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is more precise. Do you also agree? For example the former RLDS, now the Community of Christ and also the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Fettingite and Elijah Message Churches believe in the Book Mormon, but also this book has not such a concept or view of the Lord God. It is the LDS edition of their "Doctrine and Covenants" book and maybe partly the "Book of Abraham" of their "Pearl of Great Prize" book which is or are the basics of their (LDS) concept of God. We feel like the original title mislead people to the thinking that all churches of the "mormon spectrum" have such a view.--Parsi123 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It stands to reason that not all parts of the Latter Day Saint movement may have the same view of God. Rather than attempting to narrow the view and create an article specific to the LDS Church, this article should be appropriately expanded to reflect those views. There appears to already be some attempt to do that in the article, where other parts of the movement are identified and represented. So, the original title is not misleading in anyway. "God in Mormonism" is correct and should just be addressed as noted. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ChristensenMJ. The title is not in any way misleading, and such an expansion has already started to take place. Any attempt to make this article specific only to the LDS Church is, IMHO, ill-advised and premature. Good discussion, though. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The term Mormonism excludes the Community of Christ, which is part of the Latter Day Saint movement but not generally identified by the term Mormonism, especially when the term is used to refer to doctrine or theology. The Mormon theology is taught by the LDS Church and by its fundamentalist Mormon offshoots. I don't think this article needs to be expanded to include non-Mormon religions such as the Community of Christ that trace their history to the teachings of Joseph Smith, but which are generally Protestant and trinitarian. COGDEN 03:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God in Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613225251/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C16653 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C16653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

New text attributed to EOM

This recent edit claims that the re-inserted text is fully supported by the sources cited. I had previously removed the text because, when I looked at the sources, I could not get to the claims made without some wild extrapolation. Here is why I believe the text in question is not directly supported by the cited source:

Claim: "However, according to the Mormon Encyclopedia [sic] Elohim means simply god and not a name of the deity. (source)" Note that the "however" is with respect to the previous statement that "the name "Elohim" is used to refer to God the Father" in the endowment ceremony. If you keep reading the cited source beyond just the first paragraph you'll see this: "Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven". The "however" is misapplied since the previous statement does not say Elohim is God the Father's name, but a name used to refer to him - which is completely consistent with the rest of the cited EOM source. Hence, the "however" and the following statements are not supported by the cited source in full. Perhaps it would be better to say the name-title "Elohim" is used to refer to God the Father, but that honestly sounds a little odd and overly pedantic.

Claim: "Brigham Young University and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has recommended the use of Ahman to refer to the deity Heavenly Father instead of Elohim. (source)" The cited source only makes two statements with regards to the name "Ahman" - "A less ambiguous term for God the Father in LDS parlance might be "Ahman" (cf. D&C 78:15, 20), which, according to Elder Orson Pratt, is a name of the Father (JD 2:342)" and "In two revelations to Joseph Smith (D&C 78:20;95:17), Jesus Christ referred to himself as "the Son Ahman," allowing the possibility that "Ahman" may be a word meaning God, and one of the names of the Father". In my opinion, neither of these statements rises to an actual recommendation. If anything, the statements are self-admittedly speculative using words like "might" and "possibility".

This is in the section on teachings from the 1840s and the paragraph in particular is about the endowment ceremony, so this whole discussion seems very much out of place. Maybe it belongs elsewhere in the article, but not here and not with these claims which are not supported by the cited EOM sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The are fully supported in the Encyclopedia entry

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Elohim

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father

How are they fully supported? I've argued above in detail how the statements are not supported by those sources. If you aren't going to address the points in my arguments, I will remove the text again since there is no consensus for their addition. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

and I will revert them back. I rather have an admin look into you removal of these additions. DeusImperator (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have yet to establish consensus, nor have you explained how the edits are supported by those sources despite my explanations above. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok I see you do have a point as to the 1840s. I can create a new section for this. Thanks for the recommendation. I will do that later. Given that solution I will revert it myself/DeusImperator (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that my suggestion for putting it elsewhere in the article was also contingent on reaching a consensus that the statements are supported by the sources. Please explain how the sources support the statements given my counter arguments above so that a consensus can be reached before reinserting the text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

They are fully supported (but in the wrong section) and I do not need nor do I seek your permission to do so. I am more than willing to have the unbiased admins look into your behavior in this regard and have such admins evaluate the evidence. I do not care to argue with you in this regard. DeusImperator (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you need my permission - you do need, according to WP policies, to establish consensus for including that text. That comes by you and I discussing our content dispute, possibly coming to a compromise, or involving additional editors to resolve the dispute, most likely to determine what the sources actually support. You have is the onus here, not me, to establish consensus for the inclusion of the challenged text.

My behavior has been no worse than yours, so if you're treating this as a behavioral issue, instead of a content issue, beware the WP:BOOMERANG. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A peacefully peaceful message

Deleted: sarcastic, hostile and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Troll material. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Care in reading sources

God in Mormonism includes Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. It is not only the Father. Care needs to be taken in interpreting the sources because others such as BYU clearly state that they are all God. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not that simple - to quote the EOM reference already in the article - "Among Latter-day Saints, the title "God" generally identifies God the Father. Occasionally, God may refer to the unified Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (cf. 2 Ne. 31:21; D&C 20:28) and at times to each member individually (AF, pp. 159-63)". For example, when member of the Church say that Jesus is the "Son of God", he is the son of God the Father, not the son of the Godhead. "God" in some instances includes Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, but not always - I would argue it depends on context. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

My mistake! Sorry, you're right. Thanks.Nope. Please see "and at times to each member individually (AF, pp. 159-63)" for why this needs to be included in the introduction. It is actually perhaps the most common way of talking about things. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC); edited 02:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be in the lede, which is why've added a sentence to address the nuance, but the EOM reference clearly states "the title "God" generally identifies God the Father...". Based on this, and on my own experience studying LDS theology, I would disagree with your statement that it is the most common way of talking about these things. Why do you think that this is the most common way of talking about these things? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

My experience with Christianity and Mormonism has told me that Jesus is God. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise, and yes it includes Mormonism. Could you honestly say that Jesus is not God? Not God? That's ridiculous. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem with the introduction because you would never, never say that Jesus is not God. I would like to thank you though for the changes that you have made. Your recent edits are good. :) Altanner1991 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll rebut myself saying the Holy Ghost is not commonly said as God, and so with that I'll leave it to the changes you have made, unless motions are made that want further improvements.James E. Talmage described the Holy Ghost as God in an individual sense. [1] p. 111: The term Holy Ghost and its common synonyms, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, or simply, Spirit, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth, occur in the scriptures with plainly different meanings, referring in some cases to the person of God, the Holy Ghost, and in other instances to the power or authority of this great Being. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC); edited 08:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

God, Jesus, Holy Ghost

Mormons do not believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one. They believe they are individuals 162.218.217.181 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Those terms aren't mutually exclusive. Because the Book of Mormon itself uses "one" to describe the unity of the Godhead, this criticism either regards the usage of the word "one" in the Book of Mormon (which would not apply in this setting), or the interpretation of the the term in this article, which isn't clarified here. ABCedarTree (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Plurality of Gods

These phrases are over-generalizations of LDS belief:

"Latter Day Saints believe in an eternal cycle..." and "Though Mormonism proclaims the existence of many gods". (in this case, "gods" probably refers to deities ontologically equivalent to Heavenly Father). Although the belief in exalted gods is an official LDS doctrine, the language here implies that that necessarily includes the belief in an infinite cycle of Heavenly Fathers (and Mothers). (Also known as the infinite regression model). This fails to recognize other interpretations of this doctrine. The other sentences in this paragraph are fine because they specifically reference where a teaching comes from. But the two aforementioned phrases fail to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (from Wikipedia's NPOV policy). Or, as I would describe, they fail to avoid stating seriously contested LDS opinion as general LDS belief. Let me know if I have misunderstood the NPOV policy.

I believe it would be more accurate to say "some", "many", or "a prominent view" here. Views of canonical authority affect general LDS belief, and while the infinite regression model is a common LDS belief, it is not an unequivocally canonical doctrine. Unequivocal canon is attested to both by scripture and modern prophets, or (more tangibly) the official Church website. I don't believe other LDS theologies would count as a fringe theory among Mormonism, so this article should "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

Generally, I think this article gives "undue weight" to mostly speculative views in LDS thought and should distinguish between more foundational/canonical theological views and less central/communicated views. ABCedarTree (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)