Restore Correct Understanding of the Nature of the Godhead

Re-write this:

As the Book of Ben Kathryn states, just as many views of the trinity the church has erred in its view of the Godhood. Even the unique wording of question one in the temple recommend interview wrongly tests our belief or view of God as a “social trinity” (or three distinct beings one in purpose but separate in body) as opposed to Judaic, Catholic or Protestant views with differing ideas concerning unity of substance and essence, etc. It seems like the type prideful and divisive question that the early Catholic Arians often forced upon the Monophysites before excommunicating and ostracizing them.

for, lo, they have corrupted themselves; in things old and new they have corrupted themselves: in matters pertaining unto the powers of the living God they have corrupted themselves, in that they say I am not one. Lo, I Am One, saith the LORD. JHWH is my name. I have none other. My Spirit is holy and my tabernacle is Saviour. I am Saviour, and beside me there is no god. There is no other path but mine. I split not asunder. Thou shalt not be instructed of the churches, but thou shalt instruct them, for indeed have they corrupted themselves before me; and my spirit shall come upon you to teach the nations. (BOBK 46:14)

My question is why? What if I come from a protestant background, believing that Jesus Christ IS the the Eternal Father? (ie. one in essence, but separate in person from the Father). Does that make me ‘unworthy’ when our scriptures teach the same? Look at Alma 11:38–39, Mosiah 15:1–4, Ether 3:14–15, Mosiah 16:15. ALL of these Book of Mormon scriptures teach specifically THAT CHRIST IS THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER. Until Christ’s coming there is no distinction between the essence of Christ and the Father. No hint that they have separate physical “bodies”, and far more biblical scriptures suggesting the Father is Spirit than corporeal. Only later does that distinction appear, (see John 10:30, 17:11-23, D&C 20:28; 121:28). Look at the wording of Mosiah 15:2–3 and Ether 3:14, where Christ is said to be both the Father and the Son—called Son when manifesting singly in form to flesh, but Eternal Father when in unity with Heavely Spirit. These scriptural ambiguities have been debated by prophets and philosophers for thousands of years! The Catholic Catechisms on the trinity are carefully worded to preserve the scriptural ambiguities, paradoxes and complexities, and yet we come along and pretend we have the simple clear-cut answers when there are no simple answers because of the sophistication of the metaphors and archetypes. Joseph’s Smith’s first vision is not even an answer because come to find out his earliest accounts have only ONE physical being (much like the Book of Mormon and New Testament theology). Not until later, when Joseph’s theology starts changing does he place “two physical beings” in his vision. Careful research shows our theology to be historically inconsistent, contradictory and juvenile. And scripture appears to purposefully present paradoxes in this regard, which is why the early church fathers agreed on calling God largely “incomprehensible.” (See the Wikipedia articles on sabellianism/modalism, trinitarianism, or the Nestorian debates to get a grasp on how trite most of our Mormon understandings of the historical christian concepts of trinity actually are.)

This question only reinforces the false pride within the church that our “social trinintarian” views are uniquely different and superior to those of Greater Christianity at large.  When you put this kind of stress on our neo-Trinitarian assertions — how will they not confuse and disillusion our members when they are confronted with the fact that Joseph’s view on the nature of the godhead clearly changed over time?  That his accounts of how many beings he saw in his “first vision” seem to have changed to match his views? (see church produced gospel topic essay “First Vision Accounts” — or better see Dan Vogel’s videos).  That the Book of Mormon essentially contains classic Trinitarian views on God (Alma 11:38–39, Mos 15:1-4, Ether 3:14–15, Mosiah 16:15), and that Church leaders have changed some of these verses to better align with current views? (for instance, 1 Ne 11:18,21, 32 & 1 Ne 13:14)  That the bible contains verses which conflict with current views (1 Tim. 1:17 | 1 Tim. 6:16 | Jer. 23:23–24 | 1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:24–28, John 4:24). That Joseph Smith’s lectures of Faith define the Father as “a personage of Spirit”, the son as a “personage of tabernacle [flesh]”, and the Spirit being “the mind” of the Father and Son  (LOF 5:2). And that later, these views were changed to make “the Father have a body”, and the Holy Ghost to be “a personage of Spirit” (130:22). That views of God held by Old Testament prophets very plainly appear to be vastly different than our current view. (Elohim is a plural form of the Word ‘God’… and definitely not the “name” of the Father).  That Joseph Smith’s King Follet Discourse and D&C 121:32/132 adds complexities to these social Trinitarian views which create more questions than it answers concerning the nature of God(s). That D&C 88:6–13, 93:7-35 teach of an omnipresent non-anthropomorphic aspect of God more in line with Tim. 1:17, 1 Tim. 6:16 and many early church fathers, and more in line with my current beliefs. (Beliefs that understanding the exact nature of God is impossible and blasphemous. That we only understand the part of God that is revealed to us, and that God reveals himself/itself differently to different people and that we should respect that and seek to ‘know’ god in our own unique way, instead of forming dogmatic or creedal opinions of him/her/it).

I really wouldn’t have an issue with this question, except that the pride within the predominate view we’ve pushed for the last hundred years is causing so many to falter, lose their testimonies or leave our faith. People lose faith when the church places so much emphasis on the supposed dogmatic “truth” of our ideas on God — and then they find out those ideas are not even entirely consistent. And worse, our pride will cause many of our members to reject the coming Jewish prophets. I suggest we stop testing members on their view of God as a requirement for entering the temple and start asking members about their beliefs and experiences with God, so that we may find ways to add to and grow their beliefs in meaningful ways. I suggest we start stressing our scriptural similarities with the Christian trinity, (and even Jewish/Muslim unitarianism) not just our imagined differences. I believe learning the nature of God as He is symbolically taught in our scriptures is very important and deeply personal. I think the conflicting and even paradoxical descriptions of God in LDS and Christian scripture are purposefully designed to try and discourage dogmatic creeds or idol interpretations of deity. Let’s find and define God together as a church and enjoy each other during the journey, not arrogantly dictate our narrow interpretation of God as seen by one of his many, many witnesses.