Trinity

[volgadon]

I'm focusing on the foundation of Judaism, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

If the purpose of the Shema was to express an unwavering, fierce monotheism, then one must ask why a more unambiguous verse wasn't chosen.

Moshe Weinfeld has pointed out that there is a connection between the use of "one" and the need to love something or someone. The importance of the Shema lies in the next verse, which is a call to love God with all of your heart, mind, and possesions (or capacities). The importance of the Shema, in its call for an unwavering devotion to God, is best illustrated by the martyrdom of R. Akiva. The Shema wasn't associated with martyrdom before then. The reason R. Akiva recited the Shema was that the time for his martyrdom coincided with the time for reciting the Shema. This expressed his unfailing devotion to God's commandments, even though he was being brutally and slowly executed.

Angels and other beings aren't in the picture, as the nature of God is. And I agree, that a binatarian view can be derived from much of the OT literature, which opens the door to the trinitarian view, but even then, God isn't many gods, but one.

They aren't in the picture? If the foundation of Judaism was a fierce monotheism expressed through the Shema, then why are there angels and other beings? With binatarianism there is more than one god. The Logos/Memra/Sophia/Sephirah is a separate divine being and entity. So we have God, and then another god, at least.

Edited July 17, 2011 by volgadon

[ebeddoulos]

Thank you.

Indeed I do, thanks for asking.

So, since LDS worship the Father, and the Son, and since they are separate individual Gods. Then it appears to me that the LDS worship two Gods, the Father and the Son. How is that not Polytheism?

...

One being, God. The shared attributes that make God, divine if you will, that are shared between the three. I don't think I can explain it adequately, as I said before, we don't have a reference point for one Being and that one Being also three persons.

WOW!!! I think you are missing something. You obviously do not know the LDS religion as well as you think you do. Let me help you out:

"I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.(Doctrine and Covenants 35:2)

"A time to come in the which anothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:28)

"And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of h***. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory." (Moses 1:20)

"Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." (Doctrine and Covenants 20:28)

"Who is willing to have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth which is in Christ Jesus, who is the Only Begotten Son of God, and ordained to be a Mediator between God and man; who is one God, and hath power over all men." (1 Timothy 2:4-JST"

"Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." (Doctrine and Covenants 20:28)

"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)

"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)

In light of how wrong your assumption was, perhaps you need a change of strategy. Instead of inane statements like "it appears to me that the LDS worship two Gods" perhaps you should consider asking questions like "Does that mean LDS worship two gods?"

[zerinus]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Grace never rules out repentance...

So what objection do you have to LDS teachings and practices, which emphasises the importance of repentance and keeping God’s commandments (as all the biblical prophets have done), in addition to grace through the Atonement of Christ?

Well, we disagree about John 17 then.

We don’t. You disagree with the John 17.

Either, I'm talking in contradictory terms, or there's a misunderstanding.

I think that you are.

You say that when the Bible says, "GOD" (Theos or one of the many names for God). That this must indicate a 4th person of the "Quadinitry?"

No, that is not what I am saying at all. You are not addressing the real question. The question is as follows: You assert that there is One God in Three Persons. That One God is either a Person or He isn’t. Which is it? If that One God is Himself (or Itself) is a Person, then you have four “Persons” to deal with: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and the conglomeration of all three which is the One God. On the other hand, if that One God is not a Person, then that contradicts everything that is written in the Bible.

But, when I disagree, you don't allow me to say that sometimes the Biblical text is speaking generally, and referencing "God" in general. I can only be contradicting myself?

That is a dodge! You are dodging the question. There is no such thing in the Bible as a “General God”. The Bible, by your own admission, talks about One God, which you claim consists of Three Persons. The question is: Is that One God Himself (or Itself) a Person or not? If the answer is Yes, then you have admitted to four “Persons” in the Trinity, not three. If that One God is not a “Person,” then you are contradicting the Bible. You have got to make up your mind which side you are going to jump. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Why is it that a Trinitarian, such as myself, can't understand the Bible for what it plainly says. When sometimes it just says, "GOD" why can't it be referring to the whole Godhead?

Then you shouldn't identify yourself with Trinitarians or the creeds, because that is not the doctrine that they are teaching.

Why is it that you feel the need to say that I'm being contradictory?

Fact remains that my position isn't inconsistent or illogical. You may disagree with it, and I yours, but illogical? Sorry.

See above.

You'll have to direct your question to Ambrose, as you quoted me asking him the same basic question.

No, my question was directed at you. It had nothing to do with him.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.”

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

John 8:58J esus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

What does "of one Being with the Father" mean?

One being, God. The shared attributes that make God, divine if you will, that are shared between the three. I don't think I can explain it adequately, as I said before, we don't have a reference point for one Being and that one Being also three persons.

In none of those scriptures does it say that the Father and the Son are of “one being,” in the Trinitarian sense. If that be the case, then the following verses suggest that we are all of “one being” with the Father and the Son:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,

that they may be one,

as we are.

John 17

:

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;

that they may be one,

even as we are one:

It is not a “Trinity” any more, but “Infinitunity”!

Edited July 18, 2011 by zerinus

[3DOP]

This is what is incorrect:

Where does it say that in the Bible? And what does it mean anyway?

Zerinus,

Where in the Bible does it say that Father and Son lack oneness in Being? Nowhere directly. Clearly, these ideas are developed from implications of the biblical record. Whether right or wrong, we cannot restrict our beliefs only to those truths that are explicitly stated. Ideas have consequences. No one is claiming that all of their beliefs are explicitly stated in the Bible. The claim is that biblical truth leads to these conclusions. It is fair for you to argue that biblical truth does NOT lead to the conclusion. Even Protestants, who claim to reject Tradition as a source, usually believe that we are permitted to propose concepts based on biblical truth, not explicitly articulated in Scripture. But if it comes to Catholics, in addition to the theological developments drawn from the Bible, we believe in revealed truths found in the deposit of Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture. You can find the seminal ideas that led to the world of the microchip in texts that don't use the language that is now common and helpful in discussing computer technology. This way of developing knowledge is acceptable and even inevitable. Therefore, we are not concerned to find the language of theology in the pages of Scripture, and would indeed be surprised to discover it.

The lengthy expression in English, "of one being with the Father" is expressed thus in the Latin with only two words: "consubstantialem Patri". My translation reads, "of one substance with the Father."

Lest there be confusion about the word "consubstantialem", we can learn from later documents precisely what the Church intended when it used this expression. I have explained this before but I suppose it has been a couple of years and I will do it again. It does not imply any confusion of persons. God is Three in persons, One in Substance. They have the same nature, after the same fashion that you have the same nature as your parents. You, according to the theological usage of the expression, consubstantialem, are of one being with your parents. THAT is what the Nicene Fathers were eager to show in regards to the Sonship of Christ. There are further theological ramifications of sharing the perfectly divine nature. But that does not concern the Nicene Creed. The Creed is saying that WHATEVER makes God the Father God, that is what also makes God the Son God. The Arian heresy proposed a diminished form of deity to the Son, based on passages showing Him as being obedient to the Father which made the Arians consider that He must somehow be inferior to the Father.

It is not my intention to argue that we Catholics are correct. I know that some of the Arian arguments that appeal to subordinationism are appealing to LDS. But it is evident that many LDS incorrectly understood the meaning of the authors who wrote that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. I think LDS are sometimes drawn to oppose what they imagine the Nicene Creed teaches. We oppose it too! Bravo for you. One person here thought he had exposed the Creed's absurdity by showing God saying to Himself that He had begotten Himself. We applaud such reasoning. We don't accept that. Neither do we accept the notion that oneness of being precludes multiple personhood.

From the text of the Council of Chalcedon, which also uses the expression, consubstantial (also sometimes translated as one in being, essence, or nature), we can see that there is no philosophical gymnastics whereby we are proposing some bizarre concept that is beyond human reason. Here is the text, with highlighted parts mine:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature, like unto us in all things except sin, [cf. Heb. 4:15]; indeed born of the Father before the ages according to divine nature, but in the last days the same born of the virgin Mary, Mother of God according to human nature

The only way in which Christ is consubstantial with us, is the same way that all humans are consubstantial. Just as Nicea was about defending the full sonhood of Christ as God, Chalcedon was about defending the full sonhood of Christ as Man. The book of Genesis gives us the principle, "after their kind". Hummingbirds do not beget pythons. I am confident that your parents were humans and that you are consubstantial with them. The offspring of a hummingbird is 100% hummingbird. The offspring is consubstantial with the parent. This is no high faluting theology or philosophy that tries to add to what is not in Scripture. It is an attempt to show that when the Father says He has a Son, we believe that He means that just as we have children that are consubstantial with us, so God the Son is consubstantial with God the Father. Clearly, if you will observe how the Council Fathers use the term consubstantial to apply to Christ's humanity, you know it has to refer to the simple process of generation with which we are familiar who know our biology. That is why in the preceding statements of the Nicene Creed we are building toward the words, "consubstantialem Patri".

God from God,

Light from Light,

True God from True God,

One in being with...(consubstantialem)

These are all four different ways of affirming that the sonship of God is no metaphor given in loving condescension to a lesser form of life. The Son literally possesses whatever and every attribute that belongs to the essential life of His True Father. THAT is what we mean and it doesn't seem to me all that sinister or difficult. I am sure we can part ways and disagree anyway at some point. But there is no sense in trying make more out of the expression "consubtantial" than is intended by those who first used it in an attempt to be precise as to their conviction that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man.

3DOP

Edited July 18, 2011 by 3DOP

[urroner]

It is not my intention to argue that we Catholics are correct. I know that some of the Arian arguments that appeal to subordinationism are appealing to LDS. But it is evident that many LDS incorrectly understood the meaning of the authors who wrote that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. I think LDS are sometimes drawn to oppose what they imagine the Nicene Creed teaches. We oppose it too! Bravo for you. One person here thought he had exposed the Creed's absurdity by showing God saying to Himself that He had begotten Himself. We applaud such reasoning. We don't accept that. Neither do we accept the notion that oneness of being precludes multiple personhood.

3DOP

Sir, this is what I really like about you. You don't seek division and confrontation. You simply seek to find out what we have in common and civility, cognition, and edification where we have variance.

[ChristKnight]

Thank you 3DOP, this is also how I have explained "consubstantial".

The "problem" however that I see with this understanding is that it doesn't really maintain "monotheism" any more or less than the Latter-day Saint view, especially when understanding that Christ is consubstantial with us (and we are therefore consubstantial with each other as humans).

Also, whenever I have explained the Trinity as you have (essentially that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all possess the same "essential attributes of Deity", i.e. the characteristics that make the Divine divine), LDS tend to agree with it.

[3DOP]

Thank you 3DOP, this is also how I have explained "consubstantial".

The "problem" however that I see with this understanding is that it doesn't really maintain "monotheism" any more or less than the Latter-day Saint view, especially when understanding that Christ is consubstantial with us (and we are therefore consubstantial with each other as humans).

Also, whenever I have explained the Trinity as you have (essentially that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all possess the same "essential attributes of Deity", i.e. the characteristics that make the Divine divine), LDS tend to agree with it.

Hey Christ Knight.

But I agree with you again! I don't need to deny LDS are monotheistic. I don't really care one way or the other about it. I think my problems with Mormonism lie completely and exclusively in the fact that they conflict with Catholic claims.

These misunderstandings about theological differences have their origin in the desire of some to propose that not only are this group or that not the true church, but in addition, they are clearly nuts! For our own peace of mind and convenience, we make them appear to be weird and literally incredible. People of good will have to guard against the tendency to exaggerate the error of those who are not us. Muslims accuse Catholics of not being monotheistic. Whatever. I am not responsible for someone else's view of what constitutes monotheism. I do not consider myself or the Catholic position to be rigorously monotheistic anyway. If my belief isn't monotheistic to somebody else, I can't be concerned about it. I don't care about whether the belief rises to some level that qualifies as monotheistic. I only care about the belief! I admit that Catholic monotheism is nuanced. God is One and God is Three depending on how you look at it. As a Muslim, no matter how you look at it, God is One. If they want the award for being the most rigorous monotheists, they can have it as far as I am concerned. No Christian will ever win that battle and I don't have any such goal anyway. I am willing to concede that I am not the strictest monotheist and if Mormons aren't either, it isn't for that reason that I fail to accept their truth claims.

I think 99% of the problems stem from a desire to oversimplify the arguments against any particular group by making them appear to be ridiculous. I cannot count the times I have heard the words ridiculous, absurd or incredible, sometimes coupled with an exceedingly powerful word like absolute to describe Catholic teaching. Its just SO extreme. Why do we have to operate as though anyone who is wrong about one thing is as completely wrong about everything as can possibly be? I have been to Catholic Answers. All sides are guilty of this. The fact is that it is a difficult and time consuming matter to properly examine and discern the truth claims of any large and well established belief system. It is a practical reality that many of the faithful in our two religons and others are desirous of easily disposing of the truth claims of other faiths and we tend to eagerly snap up the easiest way of pacifying any doubts we may have and that comes at the price of making error appear not just merely to be wrong, but to be stupid. All people of good will have to recognize what I would call, "the beauty of error". Good error (meaning that which is successful) is never going to be absurd or ridiculous because every human soul desires and settles finally on a belief system that resonates with their rational instinct. It is true that crazy people believe crazy things. But that isn't good error. Craziness can't grow. Error isn't successful until the ordinary and properly functioning intellect can believe it and that is why I don't believe ugly, easily recognizable, ridiculous, or absurd error ever succeeds.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Sir, this is what I really like about you. You don't seek division and confrontation. You simply seek to find out what we have in common and civility, cognition, and edification where we have variance.

Urroner thanks. I've always enjoyed you too my friend. I loved that thing on Home Teaching with Hitler. Very well done wasn't it? I had seen those before but that had to be one of the best! Heheh.

Regards,

Rory

Edited July 18, 2011 by 3DOP

[Hughes]

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question Hughes, but when you say you see biblical texts supporting the creeds, are you saying the text supports them without any questions or are you saying that your interpretation of the scriptures support them?

Anytime anyone brings something with the term "biblical" this or that. It is always with the view that it is their interpretation. It is no different in this case. I have read through the creeds, which are deemed "wrong" and "stemming from Greek Philosophy" and I don't agree with those assessments, rather I can see biblical support for those ideas, and of course that would be my interpretation. Just as you probably disagree, based on your interpretation.

Again, Hughes, the Father and the Son are one, but not one in being. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in essence or substance, or being, as one being without substance. But that doesn't make any sense, and the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. There is no evidence of such a doctrine existing prior to the Nicene Creed. We worship both the Father and the Son, two separate and distinct individuals, but since they are in perfect unity with one another in every way except being, we are not polytheists. They are one God, members of one eternal Godhead, whom we worship. Since we worship one God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a monotheistic religion. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

I think you and I are saying essentially the exact same things, just with different terms. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are NOT one literal being; when the scriptures say that they are one, it is not meant to be taken literally. That's why John 17 refutes the idea of three consubstantial beings. If Jesus is praying for us to be one with Him the same way that He is with the Father, then He and the Father cannot be one in essence or substance, can they? Because if they are, then Jesus was essentially saying that we could also be of one literal substance or essence with Him, which of course is absurd. The "oneness" that Jesus speaks about, as well as the Father living in Him, is entirely metaphorical.

The LDS view remains confusing to me. Is it one God? or three? OR more? Don't the LDS also believe that the Father has a physical body?

So, we have the Father, has a separate physical presence, as does Jesus, and they don't share consubstanciation as explained by 3DOP. Yet you all consider yourselves monotheists. Now that is confusing.

If the purpose of the Shema was to express an unwavering, fierce monotheism, then one must ask why a more unambiguous verse wasn't chosen.

Moshe Weinfeld has pointed out that there is a connection between the use of "one" and the need to love something or someone. The importance of the Shema lies in the next verse, which is a call to love God with all of your heart, mind, and possesions (or capacities). The importance of the Shema, in its call for an unwavering devotion to God, is best illustrated by the martyrdom of R. Akiva. The Shema wasn't associated with martyrdom before then. The reason R. Akiva recited the Shema was that the time for his martyrdom coincided with the time for reciting the Shema. This expressed his unfailing devotion to God's commandments, even though he was being brutally and slowly executed.

They aren't in the picture? If the foundation of Judaism was a fierce monotheism expressed through the Shema, then why are there angels and other beings? With binatarianism there is more than one god. The Logos/Memra/Sophia/Sephirah is a separate divine being and entity. So we have God, and then another god, at least.

Angels and other beings are not equal with God.

It seems to me that The Logos/Memra/Sophia/Sephirah are but a fore-shadow of what was fully revealed through Christ.

WOW!!! I think you are missing something. You obviously do not know the LDS religion as well as you think you do. Let me help you out:

In light of how wrong your assumption was, perhaps you need a change of strategy. Instead of inane statements like "it appears to me that the LDS worship two Gods" perhaps you should consider asking questions like "Does that mean LDS worship two gods?"

You know, I ask straight questions and rarely get straight answers. It's just the way the LDS treat me I suppose. So, I'm being as honest as I can be. I said, "it appears to me..." and so it does.

Maybe you can help me understand this:

"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"

In what way exactly are three persons, one God?

So what objection do you have to LDS teachings and practices, which emphasises the importance of repentance and keeping God’s commandments (as all the biblical prophets have done), in addition to grace through the Atonement of Christ?

We don’t. You disagree with the John 17.

I think that you are.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. You are not addressing the real question. The question is as follows: You assert that there is One God in Three Persons. That One God is either a Person or He isn’t. Which is it? If that One God is Himself (or Itself) is a Person, then you have four “Persons” to deal with: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and the conglomeration of all three which is the One God. On the other hand, if that One God is not a Person, then that contradicts everything that is written in the Bible.

That is a dodge! You are dodging the question. There is no such thing in the Bible as a “General God”. The Bible, by your own admission, talks about One God, which you claim consists of Three Persons. The question is: Is that One God Himself (or Itself) a Person or not? If the answer is Yes, then you have admitted to four “Persons” in the Trinity, not three. If that One God is not a “Person,” then you are contradicting the Bible. You have got to make up your mind which side you are going to jump. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Then you shouldn't identify yourself with Trinitarians or the creeds, because that is not the doctrine that they are teaching.

See above.

No, my question was directed at you. It had nothing to do with him.

In none of those scriptures does it say that the Father and the Son are of “one being,” in the Trinitarian sense. If that be the case, then the following verses suggest that we are all of “one being” with the Father and the Son:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,

that they may be one,

as we are.

John 17

:

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;

that they may be one,

even as we are one:

It is not a “Trinity” any more, but “Infinitunity”!

Grace is another topic... I don't really have time to continue to respond to it here.

I'm not dodging a question, rather I was trying to explain that the Trinity doesn't mean nor ever would mean 4 persons. And if you honestly don't think that "God" being addressed generally doesn't include the whole Godhead, then I can't help you.

I think that 3DOP answered you better than I could have done. (Thanks by the way!)

[ChristKnight]

The LDS view remains confusing to me. Is it one God? or three? OR more? Don't the LDS also believe that the Father has a physical body?

I believe that this has sufficiently been answered in this thread. Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Persons, who are referred to as Gods. They are united in purpose, will, mind, love, and intent, and this unity makes them "one God", a unity called "the Godhead". Yes, Latter-day Saints believe that the Father is embodied. It really is not confusing.

So, we have the Father, has a separate physical presence, as does Jesus, and they don't share consubstanciation as explained by 3DOP. Yet you all consider yourselves monotheists. Now that is confusing.

Actually, 3DOP did not say any such thing in his post.

Also, if you read 3DOP's explanation of what it means to be consubstantial, I fail to see how that is any more or less monotheistic than the Latter-day Saint view. If Christ is consubstantial with us due to His Incarnation, and we are therefore consubstantial with each other as humans, and "substance" is referring to "nature" (a la Sheed in his book "Theology and Sanity"), and/or that substance in this context is referring to the "essential attributes of deity" (the characteristics that make the Divine divine) (a la Olson in "The Story of Christian Theology"), then I again fail to see how three distinct Persons possessing these essential divine attributes is monotheistic.

Maybe you can help me understand this:

"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"

In what way exactly are three persons, one God?

This has been answered already. The three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are united in will, purpose, love, intent. They function as a unit, the Godhead.

Again, using 3DOP's definition of what "substance" is referring to (a definition that I agree with and have used numerous times on this board and elsewhere), I do not see how the traditional Trinitarian view is more monotheistic than the LDS view. At best, it is, as 3DOP states, a "nuanced monotheism", since it accepts three distinct Persons having the same essential attributes of deity.

Edited July 18, 2011 by ChristKnight

[Storm Rider]

So, since LDS worship the Father, and the Son, and since they are separate individual Gods. Then it appears to me that the LDS worship two Gods, the Father and the Son. How is that not Polytheism?

Polytheism is the belief of multiple deities -note the restriction to worship isn't found in this definition.

Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the Greek word for “God.”

pol·y·the·ism (pl-th-zm, pl-thz-m) n. The worship of or belief in more than one god.

This is the poor logic that motivated men to create the Trinity doctrine in the first place. How could Jesus be divine when there can only be one God? In their minds God could not have had a son and not also invalidate the doctrine of monotheism. In their minds, they either had to accept divinity or monotheism, but could not accept both simultaneously. The philosophical trick....create a thing called "substance". We will make them one in substance but distinct in all other ways. Thus Jesus can still be divine and separate. God can still be one, yet three persons.

If LDS are polytheisticic then Jesus was also, as well as all the early apostles. Jesus taught there was only one God, his Father. However, he also taught that he was the Son of God, thus divine. Further, he prayed that we would be one as he is one with the Father. LDS teaching is that we may become one with the Father and the Son, the Son is divine, and the Godhead has three beings: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Word games are just too infantile and I too easily feel the need to slap things for me to engage this type of silliness to go further. If the doctrines of man work for you, great! Embrace them, close your mind to all else. However, if you ever want to understand the Godhead, listen to the Holy Spirit. It proclaims all truth.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Storm Rider

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

From a different thread in the Social Hall

Pa Pa wrote -

The error, at least with this statement is thinking that the Trinity means that they all have the same mind or will. They do not.

Assuming that if they are "one God" that therefore they must be "one mind" is an error.

And no, these are not problems in Catholic/Protestant doctrines either.

Question for the Non-LDS:

Is it at all possible in your mind(s), for a person to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and at the same time believe that God the Father has a corporeal body?

[3DOP]

Question for the Non-LDS:

Is it at all possible in your mind(s), for a person to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and at the same time believe that God the Father has a corporeal body?

Yes. It is reasonable to believe in the Trinity while believing that God the Father has a body.

I have argued for many years now that properly understood, the Nicene Creed is compatible with LDS beliefs. Neither the Creed nor the doctrine speaks to the question of a corporeal body for the Father at all. I don't believe that God the Father has a body, but that doesn't derive from the doctrine of the Trinity, but from the interpretation of Scriptures that more directly speak to the subject as interpreted by Catholic Tradition. I can easily see that apart from the traditional interpretation of Scripture, one could take biblical passages like the one in Acts where St. Stephen has a vision of Christ at the Father's right hand as indicating a physical body for the Father. I don't see how LDS belief in the Father's corporeality is in conflict with the universal law of consubstantiality of parent to child. Consubstantiality, (or one in being with), as it was in this thread, is the usual "sticking point" when LDS and non-LDS discuss the Nicene Creed.

Edited July 18, 2011 by 3DOP

[Rob Bowman]

Fig-bearing Thistle,

You wrote:

Question for the Non-LDS:

Is it at all possible in your mind(s), for a person to believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and at the same time believe that God the Father has a corporeal body?

A simple yes or no answer is problematic because your question can be taken in such a way that these doctrinal ideas are treated abstractly and divorced from their theological contexts. I shall explain.

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity needs to be understood in the context of the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is the doctrine that one of the three persons of the triune God became a human being for our salvation. In this theological context, God has always, eternally, been God, by nature incorporeal, infinite Spirit, but is able to and did in fact choose to assume human nature in order to redeem fallen human beings. In orthodox theology, then, the Son has a body as an aspect of his human nature, which he graciously and humbly took in order to die on the cross for our sins (Phil. 2:6-8 ). Orthodox theology holds that the Son, by virtue of the Incarnation, has two natures: the divine nature, which he has eternally as the divine Son, and human nature, which he assumed in time in order to become Messiah and Savior. His divine nature is incorporeal while his human nature is corporeal.

It is possible to understand the doctrine of the Trinity to mean that each divine person necessarily has distinct roles such that it would be appropriate for the Son to become incarnate but not for the Father or the Holy Spirit to do so. It is also possible to understand the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way that any one of the three persons might have chosen to become incarnate, though only one actually has done so. On this second view, there would be nothing theologically impossible about God the Father choosing to become incarnate, just as God the Son has become incarnate, though biblical revelation shows that in fact only the Son has become incarnate. No orthodox Trinitarian believes that the Father is in fact incarnate or corporeal, though, again, some would affirm that it would have been possible for him to become incarnate.

Now, the LDS doctrine is that God the Father is corporeal -- that he has a physical body -- as an aspect of his intrinsic divine nature. LDS theology rejects the orthodox doctrine of Incarnation by which the Son is understood to have two natures; in LDS theology, human nature and divine nature are the same nature at different stages of development. That is, human beings are potential divine beings; or to put the matter in different words, humans and gods are all members of the same divine species. In becoming a man, Jesus Christ did not assume a different nature, according to LDS doctrine. Furthermore, the dominant LDS doctrine is that God the Father was a (mortal) man before he became a God; that is, Heavenly Father was once a man like us and became exalted to Godhood, just as we may if we accept the gospel and obey the commandments. Thus, in the dominant LDS theological paradigm, the Father was not a divine person or being who then became a man, but rather was a man who then became a God.

As you can probably see, orthodox Trinitarian theology definitely is incompatible with the LDS doctrine of God the Father's corporeality. Again, orthodox Trinitarianism is compatible with the hypothetical possibility of the Father becoming incarnate (and thus corporeal), but maintains that the Father has not actually done so, but only the Son. Furthermore, the orthodox doctrine is incompatible with the idea that the Father is corporeal as an aspect of his divine nature or that the Father is corporeal because he was a mortal man who attained Godhood by a process of exaltation.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

You asked "So, do you worship Jesus?".

I answered with: I worship God the Father, through His Son Jesus the Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the only answer I can give, because that is what I do. Others may answer as they so desire.

[Storm Rider]

....

Now, the LDS doctrine is that God the Father is corporeal -- that he has a physical body -- as an aspect of his intrinsic divine nature. LDS theology rejects the orthodox doctrine of Incarnation by which the Son is understood to have two natures; in LDS theology, human nature and divine nature are the same nature at different stages of development. That is, human beings are potential divine beings; or to put the matter in different words, humans and gods are all members of the same divine species. In becoming a man, Jesus Christ did not assume a different nature, according to LDS doctrine. Furthermore, the dominant LDS doctrine is that God the Father was a (mortal) man before he became a God; that is, Heavenly Father was once a man like us and became exalted to Godhood, just as we may if we accept the gospel and obey the commandments. Thus, in the dominant LDS theological paradigm, the Father was not a divine person or being who then became a man, but rather was a man who then became a God.

As you can probably see, orthodox Trinitarian theology definitely is incompatible with the LDS doctrine of God the Father's corporeality. Again, orthodox Trinitarianism is compatible with the hypothetical possibility of the Father becoming incarnate (and thus corporeal), but maintains that the Father has not actually done so, but only the Son. Furthermore, the orthodox doctrine is incompatible with the idea that the Father is corporeal as an aspect of his divine nature or that the Father is corporeal because he was a mortal man who attained Godhood by a process of exaltation.

Rob, as a LDS I don't think I have ever believed that God the Father had a Father and thus beginning the infinite regression of gods. I believe that God was always God and there was never a time when he was not God. Jesus, a member of the Godhead, was also a God before coming tto this earth. He did not progess in his godhead by coming to earth; he only gained a body. There is a problematic verse for orthodoxy and that is when Jesus states he does nothing that he did not already see the Father do. It presupposes two things: Jesus had occaision to see the Father act as he would, and two, that God lived a mortal existence. Just as Jesus assumed a mortal body; nowhere does it state in scripture that the Father could not have done the same thing. Doing so would not make him less of a God than it means for Jesus to have become mortal.

LDS theology does not address the First Cause any better than orthodoxy. God is and that is enough.

[altersteve]

Furthermore, the dominant LDS doctrine is that God the Father was a (mortal) man before he became a God; that is, Heavenly Father was once a man like us and became exalted to Godhood, just as we may if we accept the gospel and obey the commandments. Thus, in the dominant LDS theological paradigm, the Father was not a divine person or being who then became a man, but rather was a man who then became a God.

Many Latter-day Saints believe this, but it is not a doctrine of the Church. The only doctrinal part of this is that the Father passed through mortality just like the rest of us. That does not mean that He was not God during or before His mortal experience. This is something that our critics need to understand.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, as a LDS I don't think I have ever believed that God the Father had a Father and thus beginning the infinite regression of gods.

Fine; I didn't say anything about this idea.

You wrote:

I believe that God was always God and there was never a time when he was not God.

I take it, then, that you don't accept the teaching of the King Follett Discourse as found, for example, in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (p. 345). Again, that's fine. I was careful to qualify my comments on this point by saying this was the dominant LDS view, not the only one.

You wrote:

Jesus, a member of the Godhead, was also a God before coming tto this earth. He did not progess in his godhead by coming to earth; he only gained a body.

Yes, I understand this is the LDS doctrine with regard to Jesus. However, this is not what Joseph Smith taught about God the Father in the sermon cited above.

You wrote:

There is a problematic verse for orthodoxy and that is when Jesus states he does nothing that he did not already see the Father do. It presupposes two things: Jesus had occaision to see the Father act as he would, and two, that God lived a mortal existence. Just as Jesus assumed a mortal body; nowhere does it state in scripture that the Father could not have done the same thing. Doing so would not make him less of a God than it means for Jesus to have become mortal.

Here you are agreeing with Joseph's interpretation of John 5:19 in the King Follett Discourse (p. 346). On what basis do you decide what parts of the KFD to accept and what parts to reject?

John 5:19 poses no problem to orthodox theology. Jesus did not say, "the Son does nothing except what he saw the Father do" (in the far distant past), but rather, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing." Notice that the two verbs emphasized are present tense. Jesus was saying that he was doing the same kind of works that the Father was also doing. In context Jesus is referring to the divine prerogative of giving life (see vv. 20-26). Joseph Smith actually argued that Jesus was referring to his impending death and resurrection, but this interpretation fits neither the wording nor the context of John 5:19.

You are free to disagree with anything I say, of course, but I wonder if we can agree that orthodox theology is incompatible with the view that God the Father has a physical body and in particular is incompatible with this idea as it is understood in LDS doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

Regarding the doctrine that God the Father was a man who became a God, you wrote:

Many Latter-day Saints believe this, but it is not a doctrine of the Church. The only doctrinal part of this is that the Father passed through mortality just like the rest of us. That does not mean that He was not God during or before His mortal experience. This is something that our critics need to understand.

Well, what you perhaps need to understand is that there is good reason to think the doctrine in question is a doctrine of the LDS Church. It was taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse, is included in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and is affirmed in the LDS doctrinal manual Gospel Principles which quotes from that sermon (pp. 275-79). I think it would be more accurate to say that some LDS do not believe this but it is a doctrine of the LDS Church.

[altersteve]

altersteve,

Regarding the doctrine that God the Father was a man who became a God, you wrote:

Well, what you perhaps need to understand is that there is good reason to think the doctrine in question is a doctrine of the LDS Church. It was taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse, is included in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and is affirmed in the LDS doctrinal manual Gospel Principles which quotes from that sermon (pp. 275-79). I think it would be more accurate to say that some LDS do not believe this but it is a doctrine of the LDS Church.

Gospel Principles is not a source of official LDS doctrine. The whole "God was once not God" thing that critics like to attack is not a doctrine of the Church. It is not taught in our meetings, and President Hinckley specifically stated that it's not something we teach or emphasize. We don't know much about it. Unless it is in our scriptures or it has been stated by the united voice of the First Presidency and sustained by the body of the Church, which the "God was once a man" idea hasn't, then it is not an official doctrine that the Church. It is left up to Church members to either believe or reject it, wholly or partially.

Also, the only part of the King Follett discourse that Gospel Principles quotes is the following:

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.

If God the Father "dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did," and Jesus Christ was God both during and before His mortal experience, then is it not reasonable to say that the Father was also?

Edited July 18, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

Gospel Principles is not a source of official LDS doctrine.

Of course it is. Gospel Principles is an official publication of the LDS Church. "Official" simply means that it issues from the "offices" of the organization as a statement that the organization sanctions or authorizes. Gospel Principles is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was issued by its Curriculum Department. That makes its teaching "official."

You wrote:

The whole "God was once not God" thing that critics like to attack is not a doctrine of the Church. It is not taught in our meetings,...

Will chapter 47 of Gospel Principles be taught in your meetings? Are you not studying through the entire manual?

You wrote:

...and President Hinckley specifically stated that it's not something we teach or emphasize. We don't know much about it.

In the October 1997 General Conference, after this much-publicized statement, President Hinckley had this to say:

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

You wrote:

Unless it is in our scriptures or it has been stated by the united voice of the First Presidency and sustained by the body of the Church, which the "God was once a man" idea hasn't, then it is not an official doctrine that the Church. It is left up to Church members to either believe or reject it, wholly or partially.

There is a difference between a religion's dogma (teachings that members are not free to reject) and a religion's official doctrine (teachings that the religion's teaching office formally articulates). That God was once a man and became a God may not be LDS dogma, but it is official LDS doctrine.

[volgadon]

Angels and other beings are not equal with God.

Yet they are still divine beings who often were worshipped alongside God and there are also sources depicting humans in the same terms used to depict God.

It seems to me that The Logos/Memra/Sophia/Sephirah are but a fore-shadow of what was fully revealed through Christ.

Which is irrelevant to the question at hand. You have ignored the point that these were separate divine beings.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Regarding angels, you wrote:

Yet they are still divine beings who often were worshipped alongside God and there are also sources depicting humans in the same terms used to depict God.

CFR that angels "often were worshipped alongside God."

[Anakin7]

As usual I am late to a thread [not surprising]. I would like to ask which form/model of the Trinity am I to adhere to in order to be saved ?, Western ?, Eastern ?, Economic ?, Essential ?, Monarch ?, Social ?,

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin7,

You wrote:

As usual I am late to a thread [not surprising]. I would like to ask which form/model of the Trinity am I to adhere to in order to be saved ?, Western ?, Eastern ?, Economic ?, Essential ?, Monarch ?, Social ?,

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Most of the views that you mention are simply variations of the same orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. (Monarchianism, which is what I think you mean by "Monarch," is not a form of Trinitarianism.) As far as one's salvation is concerned, what matters is not that you have the correct "model" of the Trinity but that your faith in God corresponds practically and genuinely to the God revealed in the Bible and confessed in the doctrine of the Trinity -- the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Redefinitions of these persons in a radically different theology are problems not because one must pass a theology exam to be saved but because a mangled understanding of God is symptomatic of a disconnect between the individual and the God he or she professes to know.

For example, redefining Jesus to be the firstborn of Heavenly Father and Mother's spirit children and the first of them to become a God is from our point of view a serious doctrinal error and is obviously incompatible with any form of orthodox Trinitarianism.