Mormonism and the Trinity

[Storm Rider]

No, BCSpace is correct. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and are one Being/Essence/Substance. "Ousia" is translated as "Being".

I think by "monolatrism" you mean "Modalism". For Trinitarians, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one Being" is not modalism. Saying that they are "one Person" (and that this One Person simply wears different "masks" depending on the role He wants to play), on the other hand, would be "modalism" for the Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not equate "Person" with "Being" when talking about the Trinity.

Yes, you are correct. Sometimes at this age I find that my brain functions like a model "T". It knows what it is supposed to do, but sometimes it burps and toots and so badly that one is not sure what will come of it. At those times it is best to park it outside in the garage and let it rest. Eventually it will begin anew to function like it is supposed to. I will continue to let it rest for a bit, there is some irregular belching continuing.

[StuddleyG]

I never thought that the whole trinity argument was ever useful. It drove me crazy when my mission companions would start arguments about it. This article comfirms my opinion that the trinity argument isn't all that important.

From the way I understand things, having the trinity doctrine helps keep Christianity a monotheistic religion. If the trinity members are seperated too much, Christianity becomes tri-theistic. I think mormons emphasise the unity of the godhead for the exact same reason. So we really have more common ground than most people think.

What I find interesting, however, is that the word trinity is not used once in the Bible but the word "Godhead" is used in Acts 17:29:

Forasmuch then as we are the ^aoffspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto ^bgold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man

[marcus]

I've read this article now a few times now and am a bit confused about the whole thing. I keep coming back to a few basic questions for the author:

What was the purpose of the article?

Who was the targeted audience and why?

Was this a "personal opinion" piece or is there any official church position supporting the article?

[handys003]

I've read this article now a few times now and am a bit confused about the whole thing. I keep coming back to a few basic questions for the author:

What was the purpose of the article?

Who was the targeted audience and why?

Was this a "personal opinion" piece or is there any official church position supporting the article?

Since you are new;

Dr. Peterson is a frequent member of this board. Well renowned on his expertise on LDS Apologetics such as on FAIR. He and a few others have started another website called "Mormon Scholars Testify" were more assertive blogs can be submitted in testimony of LDS views and evidences. He frequently posts some links to get us to view over to that sight and then discuss here on this board. In other words he's marketing his website to prompt more viewers. Currently for some reason today it's not linking when I click on it. However When ever you see DCP just click on his signature line on the bottom. That blue in color line at the bottom of each post, and it will link you for viewing. If you want to learn real in-depth apologetics then view his sight. He will be happy for you to come look. He spends his days giving lectures, or posting blogs and discussions, and is often chastised by non-LDS such as his stalkers often do to try to discredit him.

Also note that LDS Apologetics are in no way official Church doctrine. It merely discusses suppositions and provides evidence to support such, but does not speak for the Church. No One! None except only the Apostles can speak concerning the offical stance of the Church.

[marcus]

What was a bit confusing is the purpose and audience.

[CA Steve]

Perhaps part of the intended audience is other Christian religions who claim that the LDS are not Christians.

[handys003]

Perhaps part of the intended audience is other Christian religions who claim that the LDS are not Christians.

Yes since more than likely DCP links such to other websites, and not probably Christian either. I think he links to Muslim as well since he has ties toward such in visiting mosques. However I'm assuming at this point.

[BCSpace]

Perhaps part of the intended audience is other Christian religions who claim that the LDS are not Christians.

Sure, but the MormonTimes caters directly to members of the Church so the message also comes across with the intent to persuade members to address those who claim we are not Christians in this fashion regarding the trinity. As you may well know, I think it's wrong and misleading to use the term 'trinity' in this fashion for the reasons stated previously.

[David Waltz]

Hello handysoo3,

You posted:

>>That's why I usually do not use the term 'Trinity'. It tends as DCP stated to confusion with the Nicean Creed concept that most Christian adheres toward. I prefer the term 'Godhead", but even then in discussions it has lead toward confusion.>>

IMHO, the problem is not with the Nicene Creed itself, but rather, with the post-Augustinian understanding of the Creed.

3 1/2 years ago, I touched on this issue in the following thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13798

Grace and peace,

David

[kolipoki09]

I think it's wrong and misleading to use the term 'trinity' in this fashion for the reasons stated previously.

This is hardly new for Dan. In his CD lectures called "Defending the Faith" (distributed through Deseret Book), he mentions to the effect that "we believe in a 'trinity' of sorts, though certainly not in the same way mainstream Christianity does."

And if it is misleading, I think it would be fitting and proper to also regard Brigham Young's and B.H. Robert's use of the term "trinity" in describing the Godhead to be also "misleading." Dan was citing previous Church leaders who also used the term.

[Obiwan]

Why am I seeing BCspace and Dan Peterson arguing over something Gospel related???

Common BC, you're normally better than that on the Gospel stuff. You both should be "united" not divided. BC, I think you're reading more into his article than he intends.

[David Waltz]

Seems the link I provided above is no longer functioning, and I cannot find this older thread via the search feature; as such, I am reposting my what I wrote back in March 3, 2006:

I have been reading through the

[David Waltz]

I shall now attempt to explore what the LDS Quad has to say about the nature of the Godhead.

There seems to been a significant amount of speculation concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[3DOP]

David Waltz

It is important to note that Catholics do not deny that God cannot have a body, but what they do deny is that if God chooses dwell in a

[Anakin7]

David where is that book on the Godhead/Trinity you were working on ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7 - LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Formerly Tanyan

[Calm]

I shall now quickly duck before everyone starts throwing stones! <GRIN>

Grace and peace,

David

Throwing flowers is more like it,

Well thought out and stated as always.

---------------

Anakin, if David is anything even close to normal, it is buried underneath several other worthy projects.

Personally I have a problem keeping on a project for more than a week, let alone months or years. If it is meant to appear, it will appear. Isn't there something in Jedi lore about patience?

[Calm]

Took a bit because I ignored the date of your reference, figured out when I actually paid attention it was in the Archive section which you have to do a separate search on from the Welcome and Come In active section:

http://www.mormonapo...e-nicene-creed/

Did a little correcting myself here, now that I think of it this is probably the thread you were responding to, there is not one that you started around the same time....which means ack! it was lost. I can't believe I missed it.

No, I know better, it must have been one of the glitches that occurred during an upgrade, I came across one thread that was pretty much just all "ites"....literally, one "ite" after another, I was wondering if it was a sign of the end times how we were all splitting into "ites", even our words.

[Calm]

Since dear Dr. Hamblin's thread died an early death because DCP decided he wanted to do his own advertising (I am not using a smilie here in deference to DCP's preferences), I am reposting my own comment there here with some additions triggered by David's comments:

From the article:

The question isn't really whether Mormons use the word "Trinity," nor whether they regard the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one." They have, and they do. The only real question is how they understand the divine unity.

I have long thought that the term "Trinity" fits perfectly for how we view the Godhead as it emphasizes the unity in a way "Godhead" does not; imo, that term seems to emphasize the line of authority...which at times is important, but is not appropriate in every context...imo.

This runs into the problem, however, of being accused of trying to be more mainstream, etc. or even worse, lying about our actual beliefs by certain antimormons in my experience. What is being overlooked or rather ignored in making those accusations, is that generally the context makes clear what we mean by "Trinity" and the vast majority of people who are reading those materials that use this term or are engaged in discussions about the LDS Trinity are already well aware that we do not accept fully the Nicene Creed's version so we could hardly be trying to pull a fast one.

add-on: it was reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church that led me to believe we were much closer--Catholics and LDS---in regards to the Trinity than I had originally believed. The additional frills that caused reason to stare were just that, personal interpretations offered to me by friends and acquaintances; stripped down to the bare essence (or substance if you prefer....must resist smilie.....) the actual belief seemed almost identical to my own LDS faith bare bones definition, though I do not claim the differences are either insignificant or minor...just that they are not so dramatic as some would have us believe. Later discussions primarily with David and Rory assured me I was not far wrong, but also made me come to realize (along with a book or two thrown in to fill in some gaps) that there was still a fundamental difference that seemed to outweigh the similarities when discussing LDS and Catholic belief in general (as opposed to specific concepts), something not relating to the Trinity which deals with God's relationship with God, but rather God's relationship with Man as Father Creator rather than Heavenly Father (I hope my meaning got across with those terms, but if not I'm talking about man existing as a creation solely the product of God as opposed to the LDS belief that man is coexistent to God, is in fact the same species as God in a material sense even if most of what man now is was a result of God's creative powers---first man's spirit and now his body to be followed by our resurrected forms and likely further 'evolved' forms after that). Since it is the nature of God contrasted with the nature of Man that is at the core of this difference, this issue is related to our understanding of the Trinity which explores the nature of God and thus influences how each belief system would interpret what happens involving God's nature differently, possibly even dramatically differently. (Hopefully that last part makes sense, I am talking about how LDS would look on something like the Condescension of God differently...for LDS something quite similar to what happens to man occurred when Christ was conceived and born---a further step in his eternal life or progression as opposed to how Catholics would view it as completely different and yet identical--different because God was there, but identical in that God was made flesh.)

I think recognizing and discussing the similarities is fascinating when so much of our time we are so intent on proving how different (and therefore better or more reasonable or whatever superior position you want to use here) we are from each other. It allows us to stand side by side and build together even while recognizing that we are each building a different wing onto the same mansion. While holding to our own truths as eternal treasures, this should not stop us from admiring the artistic, insightful and often spiritually uplifting dimensions of the other's construction and even embracing those aspects that bring us closer to eternity for whatever reason imo.

edit: started to make a few punctuation changes and then decided to add some transitional changes and then decided that it wouldn't be complete without some substance changes....

[BCSpace]

This is hardly new for Dan. In his CD lectures called "Defending the Faith" (distributed through Deseret Book), he mentions to the effect that "we believe in a 'trinity' of sorts, though certainly not in the same way mainstream Christianity does."

Yes, this idea does persist unfortunately.

And if it is misleading, I think it would be fitting and proper to also regard Brigham Young's and B.H. Robert's use of the term "trinity" in describing the Godhead to be also "misleading." Dan was citing previous Church leaders who also used the term.

Put me on record in stating that BY's and BHR's statements in this reagrd, along with any others you can think of, are misleading. I don't think they're being intentionally misleading though. Some of these statements seem to indicate that one does not understand what the trinity doctrine is. Some of them show an inordinate rush to ecumenism which comes at the expense of truth.

Why am I seeing BCspace and Dan Peterson arguing over something Gospel related???

I think you're seeing one of them taking disagreement personally and it's not me. The reason why I think that is because DCP has yet to explain this esoteric point that I am supposedly missing and he had plenty opportunity to do so but refrained because of some imagined offense.

And why would you single me out? So far, most posters in this thread so far seem to disagree with DCP that we should use the term "trinity" in that fashion.

Common BC, you're normally better than that on the Gospel stuff.

Better than what?

You both should be "united" not divided.

Yes we should. But are we the only LDS disagreeing with each other on this board? The fact of the matter is that we have staked out differing positions and either one is correct or neither. But that's what boards like this are for as far as I can tell. We state our positions. We discuss the merits. Or not. My feathers don't get ruffled when someone disagrees with me. I did not seek DCP out just to argue with him and I don't care if he answers or not. I simply saw something in a post that I wanted to respond to and I did.

BC, I think you're reading more into his article than he intends.

I don't think I am, especially given his previous article on christianity and politics which carries the same underlying thread.

[Daniel Peterson]

That's why I usually do not use the term 'Trinity'. It tends as DCP stated to confusion with the Nicean Creed concept that most Christian adheres toward. I prefer the term 'Godhead"

The term Godhead is biblical, of course (it occurs three times), but actually not in the sense that we use it. It signifies "divinity," or "the quality of being God." It is, in fact, cognate with, and equivalent to, Godhood.

The term Trinity is not biblical, but I think it connotes quite well the notion of threeness-in-unity that is common to both Nicene and non-Nicene understandings of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (That the Nicene understanding of the Trinity is not the only one on offer was one of the fundamental points of the article, Nicene Trinitarianism is a species of the broader genus of Trinitarianism. It's by far the best known and the most widespread, but it's not the only kind out there.)

There are a few Christian Fundamentalists over at Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach (Rocky and Helen Hulse) who have most certainly "misunderstood" the piece at virtually every single point, though it probably wouldn't be worth your time to bother explaining.

You're right. It would be hopeless.

I have no interest at all in attempting conversation with people who instantly conclude that those who disagree with them are deceptive or disingenuous or incompetent.

Your understanding of Trinitarianism is inaccurate. T does not claim that they are one being, that is monolatrism, which was declared heretical. In T, they are three distinct persons but are one due to Ousia, because their essence is the same. This is a Platonic construct that allows the doctrine to be viewed as monotheistic while still maintaining the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is not appropriate to view T as a three faced Janus; they are viewed a strictly distinct.

Now, let me eat some crow. The doctrine of T is incomprehensible and there are many churches whose doctrine of the T is more akin to monolatrism then the actual doctrine of the T as taught by the Catholic Church. It is taught and believed in so many different ways that you will find many mainstream Christians who will agree with the LDS perception fo the Godhead and think it is the doctrine of their own church. Alas, it is one of the pitfalls of an incomprehensible doctrine created by man in order to be called monotheistic.

We need to be careful not to confuse Trinitarianism, as such, with Nicene Trinitarianism. The latter is a subset of the former. A very, very important one, of course, but it doesn't exhaust the category.

The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and are one Being/Essence/Substance. "Ousia" is translated as "Being".

You're talking about Nicene Trinitarianism. My article points out that there is a non-Nicene Trinitarianism afoot in the broader Christian world, and that it has some important similarities, intriguing parallels, to the Latter-day Saint view of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I've read this article now a few times now and am a bit confused about the whole thing. I keep coming back to a few basic questions for the author:

What was the purpose of the article?

To point out that there is a non-Nicene Trinitarianism afoot in the broader Christian world, and that it has some important similarities, intriguing parallels, to the Latter-day Saint view of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Who was the targeted audience and why?

The readers of Mormon Times.

Because that's the periodical for which I write a column.

Was this a "personal opinion" piece or is there any official church position supporting the article?

It was a personal opinion piece. All of my columns have been personal opinion pieces, and all of them will be personal opinion pieces.

I do not speak for the Church.

What was a bit confusing is the purpose and audience. The article seems to come off almost selling a new "softer more acceptable" Mormonism. Much like the new TV ad campaign.

I"m happy to disagree where we really disagree. I think it important, though, to try to understand things well enough that we don't disagree where there is no real disagreement.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct in the sense that the perpetually squabbling gods of Olympus were separate and distinct. Our uniquely LDS scriptures affirm their oneness more forcefully than the Bible does.

The church has never really taught or espoused the Trinity concept.

The Church has always taught a version of what, today, would be called social Trinitarianism. What you refer to as "the Trinity concept" is the mainstream understanding of Nicene doctrine. It's true that we don't teach that. But, as I've pointed out, there are other models for understanding the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

This article seems to promote a "just like us" spirit to gain acceptance from some group.

I have not the slightest interest in a "'just like us' spirit." None whatsoever. And I think my track record, in that regard, is quite long and plenty clear.

Nor do I care, even a smidgin, about "gaining acceptance from some group." But I'm always interested in removing obstacles to mutual understanding.

And is the target audience our own members? If so why, do we need to be educated about our similarities to the trinity concept all of the sudden? Why?

The article neither said nor claims anything about some "sudden need."

And if we are targeting members to educate, why not put such article in the Ensign where you get the vast majority of member readership? I don't think Mormon Times is that widely read by most members. Granted, the Ensign is more of an official publication and perhaps would not support such thoughts in an official capacity.

I write a regular column for Mormon Times. That's why I wrote this column for Mormon Times.

If the target audience was non members to bridgebuild, virtually no one outside the church would see it there.

Judging from the number of e-mails I've received regarding it, both members and non-members have read it in reasonably high numbers.

I don't know, the article, it's purpose and targeted audience just didn't seem to make any sense to me.

That's fine. There will be others.

[David Waltz]

Hi Rory,

ZLMB...talk about a 'stroll down memory lane'...

In your recent post, you penned:

>>It may be clear that most LDS reject the Nicene Creed, but what is not clear is if they reject the Nicene Creed from a proper reading of their own Scriptures? When I hear them talk about Social Trinitarianism, it seems like we are very close. I am as eager to defend threeness as oneness. I am as eager to defend the relative subordination of Christ to the Father as I am of His ontological equality, Oneness. We cannot compromise any of these apparent paradoxical truths, and the Social Trinitarian seems as eager as me to defend ALL that God has revealed about the divine life of the Blessed Trinity. I never criticise LDS Scripture. I have much less problem from what I know of the LDS Scriptures than I have with LDS beliefs that seem to come from "tradition". I don't think the Catholic Church ruled against LDS baptisms because of the teachings of LDS Scripture, but because of the teachings of LDS "tradition" and those Mormons who have added to what their Scriptures say. Latter-day revelation isn't as big of a stumbling block to agreement as most parties on both sides tend to assume.>>

Well said Rory, it seems that we are very close in our assessments.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi Cal,

Thanks much for the kudos. In your last post, you wrote:

>>I have long thought that the term "Trinity" fits perfectly for how we view the Godhead as it emphasizes the unity in a way "Godhead" does not