Another Trinity thread . . . sorry

[Brenda]

Here goes, (deep breath) I'm dealing with a lot of confusion. I looked up the dictionary definition of the trinity and basically have this:

1. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.

2. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.

3. In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God.

4. A doctrine of Christianity that there is one God and three divine persons in the one God: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

5. The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance*, but three persons as to individuality.

All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).

So if I have this correctly, we actually do believe nearly the same thing? The difference (between LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrine) being their origins and some physical attributes?

Help? Also, if you have a better definition, please share. I'm seeing some common ground here and HOPE everyone will be tolerant of our differences of opinion and scripture interpretation.

Thanks to all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here goes, (deep breath) I'm dealing with a lot of confusion. I looked up the dictionary definition of the trinity and basically have this:

1. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.

2. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.

3. In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God.

4. A doctrine of Christianity that there is one God and three divine persons in the one God: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

5. The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance*, but three persons as to individuality.

All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).

So if I have this correctly, we actually do believe nearly the same thing? The difference (between LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrine) being their origins and some physical attributes?

Help? Also, if you have a better definition, please share. I'm seeing some common ground here and HOPE everyone will be tolerant of our differences of opinion and scripture interpretation.

Thanks to all.

Substance does not mean purpose in the mainstream view.

THe trinity makes absoultly no sense.

Generally these htreads end up the mainstream view as "a mystery of God".

3 beings in one and one in 3 beings. Yeah that makes so much sense.

Most of this comes from a mis understanding of Isaiah. They are trying to fit one God in all of exsistance, from 3 "distinct" persons. and it doesnt work.

I like the idea of ashura. That god has 3 heads.

[Garden Girl]

Hi Brenda lady...

Not too long ago, there was quite a discussion on this topic... perhaps you can go back and search for it because it was rather detailed with lots of people posting, including those non-LDS trying to explain the trinity. It would be worth the time to try and find it...

GG

[flashmax67]

Well the trinity was one aspect, that I absolutely could not believe (shake head). Once I heard the LDS beliefs about God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being three different personages and ONE in purpose, that made perfect sense to me and many many scriptures backup that belief as well, its a home run, thats for sure.

[saemo]

5. The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance*, but three persons as to individuality.

All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).

Substance does not equal purpose. Substance is also called nature or essence. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. The terms nature or substance, are used to designate the unity of the divine being (God).

So if I have this correctly, we actually do believe nearly the same thing? The difference (between LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrine) being their origins and some physical attributes?

There are many differences. God has no origin. We differ in physical attribute, beginning with the nature of God.

[Hoops22]

Substance does not mean purpose in the mainstream view.THe trinity makes absoultly no sense. Generally these htreads end up the mainstream view as "a mystery of God".3 beings in one and one in 3 beings. Yeah that makes so much sense.Most of this comes from a mis understanding of Isaiah. They are trying to fit one God in all of exsistance, from 3 "distinct" persons. and it doesnt work.I like the idea of ashura. That god has 3 heads.

Yes, and if Mola can not understand God - The Creator of all things, The One who has existed since before time, the One who sustains all things - well, then if Mola can't understand Him then He just can't be. Let's boil God down into little snippets that completely dishonor Him so that Mola can understand. I mean, it's not as if the Trinitarian God deserves the majesty He has - let's make Him into something we all can understand. It's only God, after all.

Well the trinity was one aspect, that I absolutely could not believe (shake head). Once I heard the LDS beliefs about God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being three different personages and ONE in purpose, that made perfect sense to me and many many scriptures backup that belief as well, its a home run, thats for sure.

But not one biblical scripture.

[bluebell]

Yes, and if Mola can not understand God - The Creator of all things, The One who has existed since before time, the One who sustains all things - well, then if Mola can't understand Him then He just can't be. Let's boil God down into little snippets that completely dishonor Him so that Mola can understand. I mean, it's not as if the Trinitarian God deserves the majesty He has - let's make Him into something we all can understand. It's only God, after all.

To be fair, Mola said that he couldn't understand the Trinitarian view of God.

It seems like it would be a dishonor to God to suggest that if the Trinitarian view of God isn't right, then God 'just can't be'.

As the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner has said, "We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged."

And isn't it anti-biblical to try to imply that God cannot and should not be understood by His children? (John 17:3)

Also, wouldn't it be better to attempt to help those who are sincerely seeking to understand your view of God better than to simply try to make them feel stupid?

[BCSpace]

5. The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance*, but three persons as to individuality.

All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).

So if I have this correctly, we actually do believe nearly the same thing? The difference (between LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrine) being their origins and some physical attributes?

Help? Also, if you have a better definition, please share. I'm seeing some common ground here and HOPE everyone will be tolerant of our differences of opinion and scripture interpretation.

Oh my no. Substance is not one in purpose in the trinity. One is tempted to think the nearest analog is the priesthood, but that's not it either. The only similarity with LDS doctrine and the trinity are the names of the Three. Trinitarian doctrine is worlds apart from the Biblical LDS Godhood.

The trinitarian God could be some abstract, exists in the mind only, tentacled, shape-shifting being, whereas the Gods of the Bible are homo sapiens.

[David Waltz]

>>All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).>>

Me: â??Substanceâ? = nature or essence (i.e defining qualities). For instance, though there are billions of humans, we ALL share one humanity (our humanity is our nature or essenceâ??the qualities which make us human).

Moving to the Godhead, 3 persons share one Divinity (Divinity is the nature or essence of one who is God).

>>THe trinity makes absoultly no sense.>>

Me: I respectfully disagree.

Grace and peace,

David

[Brenda]

Substance does not equal purpose. Substance is also called nature or essence. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. The terms nature or substance, are used to designate the unity of the divine being (God).

There are many differences. God has no origin. We differ in physical attribute, beginning with the nature of God.

Hi Saemo, From your signature, I see you are Catholic? Please explain, in simplified terms, (remember I'm the dummy in the title) what you mean. I don't understand what you're saying. Thanks!

[Brenda]

Yes, and if Mola can not understand God - The Creator of all things, The One who has existed since before time, the One who sustains all things - well, then if Mola can't understand Him then He just can't be. Let's boil God down into little snippets that completely dishonor Him so that Mola can understand. I mean, it's not as if the Trinitarian God deserves the majesty He has - let's make Him into something we all can understand. It's only God, after all.But not one biblical scripture.

Hi Hoops, I've observed that you have very strong opinions on religion. So please briefly explain what the Trinity means to you in terms I can understand. I fully admit that we just don't speak the same language, and I'm sincerely trying to bridge the gap.

Thanks for your help.

[David Waltz]

Hi Brenda,

You posted:

>>Hi Saemo, From your signature, I see you are Catholic? Please explain, in simplified terms, (remember I'm the dummy in the title) what you mean. I don't understand what you're saying. Thanks! >>

Me: Though your question was directed to Saemo, I too am a Catholic Christian, and humbly submit that I sincerely doubt one can get much simpler than my previous post. But, maybe Saemo knows something I do not...

Grace and peace,

David

[Brenda]

Substance does not mean purpose in the mainstream view.

THe trinity makes absoultly no sense.

Generally these htreads end up the mainstream view as "a mystery of God".

3 beings in one and one in 3 beings. Yeah that makes so much sense.

Most of this comes from a mis understanding of Isaiah. They are trying to fit one God in all of exsistance, from 3 "distinct" persons. and it doesnt work.

I like the idea of ashura. That god has 3 heads.

According to the dictionary, the definition of substance is vague enough to mean a lot of things. Yes, the trinity doen't make sense to us LDS, but I don't want to dismiss the non-LDS as simply unexplanable. Just as we have our reasons, they have reasons to believe as they do, and I'm trying to see their side.

[Brenda]

Hi Brenda,

You posted:

>>Hi Saemo, From your signature, I see you are Catholic? Please explain, in simplified terms, (remember I'm the dummy in the title) what you mean. I don't understand what you're saying. Thanks! >>

Me: Though your question was directed to Saemo, I too am a Catholic Christian, and humbly submit that I sincerely doubt one can get much simpler than my previous post. But, maybe Saemo knows something I do not...

Grace and peace,

David

Oh, you're Catholic also? Ok, well let's see.

>>All very close definitions, the latter definition is the LDS doctrine (*assuming substance means purpose).>>

Me: â??Substanceâ? = nature or essence (i.e defining qualities). For instance, though there are billions of humans, we ALL share one humanity (our humanity is our nature or essenceâ??the qualities which make us human).

Moving to the Godhead, 3 persons share one Divinity (Divinity is the nature or essence of one who is God).

I still don't get what you're saying. I do get the humanity part. What do you mean -- 3 persons share one divinity? Do you believe they are 3 separate beings, sharing the same qualities? What are they exactly? (As best you can say.)

[bluebell]

What i would really like to understand better is what the difference is between a 'being' and a 'person' in trinitarian understanding.

Since trinitarians believe that God the FAther, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate 'persons' but one 'being', i think understanding that would really help. Especially since in regular terms a 'being' (like human being) and a 'person' are the exact same thing.

[David Waltz]

Hello again Brenda,

You posted:

>>I still don't get what you're saying. I do get the humanity part. What do you mean -- 3 persons share one divinity? Do you believe they are 3 separate beings, sharing the same qualities? What are they exactly? (As best you can say.)>>

Me: I shall try. If you understand that humanity is one natureâ??all humans are 100% human, hence one humanity or one human nature/substance/essence, etc.; apply the same concept to divinity, the one divine natureâ??the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each 100% God, hence one divinity or one divine nature; or as the BoM and D&C state: â??one Godâ?.

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)

â?¦but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one. (3 Nephi 11:36)

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:28)

Hope this helps, if not, let me know.

Grace and peace,

David

[Brenda]

Hello again Brenda,

You posted:

Me: I shall try. If you understand that humanity is one natureâ??all humans are 100% human, hence one humanity or one human nature/substance/essence, etc.; apply the same concept to divinity, the one divine natureâ??the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each 100% God, hence one divinity or one divine nature; or as the BoM and D&C state: â??one Godâ?.

If I understand you correctly, ---The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in their divinity, just as all humans are one in their humanity. So it follows, just as all humanity consists of separate individuals, then Catholics also believe that the three--Father, Son, HG, are separate individuals as well? If so, then we do agree.

So as I said earlier, our main difference is in their origins and physical attributes?

This IS helpful.

[Brenda]

What i would really like to understand better is what the difference is between a 'being' and a 'person' in trinitarian understanding.

Since trinitarians believe that God the FAther, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate 'persons' but one 'being', i think understanding that would really help. Especially since in regular terms a 'being' (like human being) and a 'person' are the exact same thing.

I think you've hit on one of the problems we (LDS and non-LDS) have. We just don't talk the same language. We use terms we assume the other understands, when actually, they are perceiving the term entirely differently. Therein the battles begin. I believe that if we can communicate better, there will be less battles.

[David Waltz]

Brenda:>>If I understand you correctly, ---The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in their divinity, just as all humans are one in their humanity. So it follows, just as all humanity consists of separate individuals, then Catholics also believe that the three--Father, Son, HG, are separate individuals as well? If so, then we do agree.>>

Me: Catholics prefer the term â??personâ? over â??individualâ? (though as you shall soon see, the term is not wholly excluded). Most of our thinkers follow the definition of Boethius, who wrote:

Wherefore if person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every substance is a nature, and exists not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of person: â??The individual substance of a rational nature.â? (Contra Eutychen, III â?? from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius â?? The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 â?? translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.)

Brenda:>>So as I said earlier, our main difference is in their origins and physical attributes?>>

Me: Some members of the CoJCoLDS are quite close to official Catholic teachings; but, I would say your above statement would hold true for the majority of Latter-day Saints.

Have you read the following essay:

http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&...ept+of+Deity%22

Grace and peace,

David

[Mudcat]

What i would really like to understand better is what the difference is between a 'being' and a 'person' in trinitarian understanding.

Since trinitarians believe that God the FAther, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate 'persons' but one 'being', i think understanding that would really help. Especially since in regular terms a 'being' (like human being) and a 'person' are the exact same thing.

Hi Bluebell,

Its a tough question you ask. At least I think its tough.

I believe there is something unfathomable about the nature of God. I think the Bible lets us know that there are certain things about God that are beyond our understanding. At least IMO, I believe it is this unfathomable part that you seem to be touching on.

I'll give an explanation a shot, though I'll have to use an analogy as a crutch.

If you look at a water molecule. It's made up of 3 individual atoms 2 Hydrogens and 1 Oxygen. You have 3 distinct atoms, yet these atoms are made up of the same components, in varying quantity. If you were to remove one of theses atoms from the equation then it would cease to be water molecule. While the three atoms are bonded in this unique relationship that allows them to be one molecule. Then even though each component is individually not the other components, each component is water.

Much like the molecule, I see this relationship of the Trinity. 3 distinct persons bound together into one God.

[saemo]

What i would really like to understand better is what the difference is between a 'being' and a 'person' in trinitarian understanding.

Since trinitarians believe that God the FAther, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate 'persons' but one 'being', i think understanding that would really help. Especially since in regular terms a 'being' (like human being) and a 'person' are the exact same thing.

being = God (singular)

Father = a person

Son = a person

Holy Spirit = a person

[JDave]

So if I have this correctly, we actually do believe nearly the same thing? The difference (between LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrine) being their origins and some physical attributes?

Brenda,

In my discussion with Rhinomelon on this topic it became apparent that one of the main differences in our doctrines on God is whether God is material or not. We could say if God is spirit or flesh, but LDS still think of spirit as being material in nature, just finer.

Because God is not made up of material, the three persons in the Trinity can be individual and yet share the same substance. Because they share the same substance they are part of one being, which is God.

LDS believe they are made up of material, even the Holy Ghost has a spirit 'body'. Therefore the three persons in the Trinity are individual, and they share the same divinity, but they are distinct beings. Their oneness is distinct enough from Trinitarian views that LDS are often said to believe in three Gods, despite there being only one Godhead.

The issue of God's origin is simple enough on the surface, though it can get profound. But the issue of the nature of God can be difficult to distinguish as far as where we agree and where we disagree with others. If you remember that Trinitarian thought is that God is not material at all, it will help you in understanding other statements and doctrines.

[Hoops22]

The trinitarian God could be some abstract, exists in the mind only, tentacled, shape-shifting being,

No, it couldn't. NOt in the least.

whereas the Gods of the Bible are homo sapiens.

Well, I can think of one - but that's not plural.

[bluebell]

Hi Bluebell,

Its a tough question you ask. At least I think its tough.

I believe there is something unfathomable about the nature of God. I think the Bible lets us know that there are certain things about God that are beyond our understanding. At least IMO, I believe it is this unfathomable part that you seem to be touching on.

I'll give an explanation a shot, though I'll have to use an analogy as a crutch.

If you look at a water molecule. It's made up of 3 individual atoms 2 Hydrogens and 1 Oxygen. You have 3 distinct atoms, yet these atoms are made up of the same components, in varying quantity. If you were to remove one of theses atoms from the equation then it would cease to be water molecule. While the three atoms are bonded in this unique relationship that allows them to be one molecule. Then even though each component is individually not the other components, each component is water.

Much like the molecule, I see this relationship of the Trinity. 3 distinct persons bound together into one God.

Alright, i think i understand what you mean.

However, i think it would really help if you explained the LDS concept of God using this 'three atom' analogy so i could see exactly where, in a trinitarians view, the LDS idea of Godhead and the Trinitarian God differ.

Does that make sense? Sometimes, for me anyway, the easiest way to understand something new is to show how it's different from something that is already understood.

[Hoops22]

To be fair, Mola said that he couldn't understand the Trinitarian view of God.

And to be additionally fair, he wrote that the argument eventually comes down to: it's a mystery. That's not where I want to go. I think God can be understood to the degree that His creation is able to, I think He wants to be understood to the same degree. I don't want to resort to the mystery position.

It seems like it would be a dishonor to God to suggest that if the Trinitarian view of God isn't right, then God 'just can't be'.

And I'm not suggesting that. NOr am I suggesting it's easy. It does take work - and I'll freely admit that I wont don't have all the answers - there are some who have spent lifetimes studying it.

As the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner has said, "We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged."

If, by this, he means scripture - then no. If he means commentary, I can see how he could get there.

And isn't it anti-biblical to try to imply that God cannot and should not be understood by His children? (John 17:3)

Yes, it is. I'm not implying this.

Also, wouldn't it be better to attempt to help those who are sincerely seeking to understand your view of God better than to simply try to make them feel stupid?

Perhaps I was a tad aggressive. But just as you (all) tend to react strongly when a core doctrine of yours is misunderstood and dismissed as pedestrian - I do as well. I believe understanding the Trinity to be at the very core of a healthy christian life. It is that important. In fact, without it, much of christian religiosity makes little sense to me, and has severe and significant impact on our relationship to Him. Therefor, I shot-put my offerings when I can so that perhaps it can be better understood. There are those who can expound better than I, so, perhaps, I lazily resort to playing defense too often. If so, my error.