Trinity

[zerinus]

I am pointing out that your beef is NOT with the Nicene Creed.

My beef is with the Nicene Creed as Hughes understands it. If you don’t understand the Nicene Creed in the same way that he understands it, you need to make that clear from the start so that he doesn’t think that you are arguing in his support, when you are not.

As a synonym for consubstantialem, "oneness of being" cannot necessarily imply that Father and Son are one in the sense which you oppose. Because of how the word is used at Chalcedon, it is evident that monotheism is not proven by consubstantiality.

I agree. Too bad you did not make that clear enough from the outset, so that Hughes wrongly misunderstood you to be teaching the opposite.

We cannot say that the Nicene Creed teaches more than that Father and Son are made of the same stuff. What that "stuff" is determines monotheistic theology. If the "stuff" is finite, the implications are different than if "the stuff" is infinite. The Nicene Creed does not delineate on that question, and consubstantiality is therefore not in conflict with LDS thought.

Like I said, too bad you didn’t make that clear from the outset so Hughes wouldn’t get any wrong ideas, as he clearly did.

I don't have any intention of defending Hughes. I don't know if we agree or not. At one point he suggested that I had explained his position well, but I don't know. My intention is to defend the Council.

The reason why he said you had explained his position well is because he thought you were agreeing with him. Thank you for making it clear that you weren’t. It would have been even better if you had made that clear from the start, so that that misunderstanding had not arisen in the first place.

I explained above why I am unconcerned if post-biblical language is biblical.

That is a different issue. Non-biblical language has the potential of being understood in non-biblical ways, and the development of Trinitarian theology is a case in point. “Consubstantial” is a non-biblical term. It is quite possible that what the Nicene Fathers understood by that word is not the same as what the modern Trinitarians understand by it; but if they had avoided the use of that term in the first place, or if they had confined themselves to biblical terms only, that difficulty would not have arisen; or if it had arisen, it could have been resolved by referring to the Bible.

Edited July 19, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I had asked for references to the worship of angels. You replied:

Gladly.

Here are a few references.

Razim, the First Heaven 1:2-4, 123-126. These, among others, provide instructions for pouring out libations to angels.

The Fourth Heaven 25-28, the First Heaven 29-31. Incense burning.

The First Heaven 160-164. Animal sacrifice.

The Fourth Heaven 59-63. Prayer to and prostration before Helios.

Colossians 2:18. Paul warns against angel worship.

Tosefta Hulin 2:18 warns against sacrificing to Michael.

The Palestinian Talmud Berachot 13a states that although a man doesn't dare go in to his patron without requesting anaudience through one of the servants, God answers petitions directly. This shows that worshiping angels was meant to increase one's chance of receiving a favourable answer to a petition by soliciting the help and favour of the angels.

I apologize for not being more explicit. I had assumed that when you asserted that angels were "often worshipped alongside God" that you were referring to some source that was authoritative for or at least representative of Christian practice. Your only scriptural reference is one that if anything condemns angel worship (Col. 2:18)!

[volgadon]

volgadon,

I had asked for references to the worship of angels. You replied:

I apologize for not being more explicit. I had assumed that when you asserted that angels were "often worshipped alongside God" that you were referring to some source that was authoritative for or at least representative of Christian practice. Your only scriptural reference is one that if anything condemns angel worship (Col. 2:18)!

I think you'll forgive me for not realising that you wanted authoritative New Testaments sources representative of Christian belief only. Hughes had made an assertion about strit montheism being the fundamental principle of ancient Judaism, its "foundation." The worship of angels was one example among many countering his claims. When you issued the CFR regarding angel worship, I responded mainly with Jewish sources. It seems that you had wanted me to back up a claim I did not make, namely, that angel worship was a, acceptable part of the earliest orthodox Christianity.

As to Paul's condemnation, it would show that at least among the Colossians there was worship of angels alongside God. If we then consider the Revelator's initial reaction to the angel, it would appear that some ancient Christians did worship angels, and that there were enough of them for at least two of the NT authors to engage in polemic against them.

[jo1952]

Yes

Hi Hughes,

Then you also believe in more than one god.

Jo, How is the trinitarian view any different than the LDS version of the Godhead?

IF three distinct person are in the Godhead, and yet that is considered monotheistic by the LDS, how is that any different than three distinct persons in the Trinity, and yet one God?

As I see it, there are a couple of clear up-front differences. Father has Supremacy. They each exist separately from one another. They are not all together only one God; however, they work together in unity as a team (if you will) performing as the Godhead. You are playing word games. For instance, here is how the Trinity Shield explains itself:

There are twelve possible deity combinations as thus:

• The Father is God

• God is the Father

• The Son is God

• God is the Son

• The Spirit is God

• God is the Spirit

• The Father is not the Son

• The Son is not the Father

• The Son is not the Spirit

• The Spirit is not the Son

• The Spirit is not the Father

• The Father is not the Spirit

Whereas you have twelve possible deity combinations, I would offer that the LDS have a core of four:

* The Godhead - when referring to all three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

* The Father - the original Supreme Being existing separately and apart from all other god beings. As the Supreme Being, He is Greater than all other gods; thus in recognizing His Supremacy, we are monotheistic.

* The Son - the only begotten Son of the Father; the Creator of our world; Christ the Savior and Redeemer of mankind on the earth; existing separately and apart from all other god beings.

* The Holy Ghost - the Comforter; the witness on the earth whereby we can know Spirit to spirit that Jesus is the Christ; the Spirit designated by the Father to lead and guide mankind to all Truth revealed to mankind on the earth; existing separately and apart from all other god beings.

There are un-numbered "real" gods, some of which are "true" gods (those who do not lie), and some of which are "false" gods (those who do lie....Satan being the most prominent as the father of lies). All gods at various and asundry times are also known by other titles. There is an hierarchy among all real gods (whether they are true--good--gods or false--evil--gods). There are also fake gods who have been manufactured in the minds of mankind. These gods only exist in the minds of mankind and are not real. Thus it is that Jesus (the God of Abraham) brought forth commandments, as instructed by His Father, to make sure that mankind would worship and recognize the correct True Supreme God of our world. In the OT, it was not as clear as in the NT. When Christ came in the flesh, He was very specific in revealing His True identity as the Son of God the Father.

While in the flesh, it will be impossible for us to know or understand the true "nature" of God. We have been taught as much in the Bible - we cannot know His mind or His thoughts. So we walk in faith; and we have the guidance of the Holy Ghost. For now, God is still a mystery for us. We have been given a roadmap - scripture; and a guide - the Holy Ghost. As we are ready, Father will instruct what the Holy Ghost is allowed to reveal to each individual; whether it is milk, or meat, or layered. The Holy Ghost will open our minds to the very Kingdom of God; but we are unable to receive it all while in our mortal physical body.

For man to think he has God figured out, and then to Judge other men's souls based on what their ideas about God are, is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible.

I have responded to your comments. Now, please respond to the questions I posed concerning the inherent and unique problems which I see existing in the Trinity.

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Thanks for your follow-up comments. That Colossians 2:18 refers to a practice of worshiping angels is disputed; the expression "the worship of angels" could refer there to the Colossians' claim that they were joining with the angels in their worship of God. Revelation also says nothing to indicate the existence of an ongoing, organized, or group practice of worshiping angels. John's attempts to worship the angel who appeared to him in context seems to have been spontaneous (and of course involving him alone), and may be included to provide some contrast to the worship that is given Christ in the book (showing Christ to be superior to angels). Thus, there is no clear evidence from the NT that any professing Christians were engaged in a religious practice of worshiping angels.

Of course, if there was such a practice, the texts in Revelation would make it clear that the practice was to be rejected. As a Christian, I consider the NT writings authoritative on this and all other religious and theological matters.

I think you'll forgive me for not realising that you wanted authoritative New Testaments sources representative of Christian belief only. Hughes had made an assertion about strit montheism being the fundamental principle of ancient Judaism, its "foundation." The worship of angels was one example among many countering his claims. When you issued the CFR regarding angel worship, I responded mainly with Jewish sources. It seems that you had wanted me to back up a claim I did not make, namely, that angel worship was a, acceptable part of the earliest orthodox Christianity.

As to Paul's condemnation, it would show that at least among the Colossians there was worship of angels alongside God. If we then consider the Revelator's initial reaction to the angel, it would appear that some ancient Christians did worship angels, and that there were enough of them for at least two of the NT authors to engage in polemic against them.

[ebeddoulos]

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.

I find your self-definition most interesting. I've had occasion where I've thought I had observed otherwise. Perception is reality, I guess.

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"

Not a problem. That quote is from the last half of the last verse of 2 Nephi chapter 31. In this chapter Nephi teaches in plainness the doctrine of Christ. It is that same doctrine which is taught every Sunday in Sacrament meeting, in every stake, regional and general conference and in every primary class, every young women’s and young men’s class, every Relief Society and Priesthood meeting and in each family during Family Home Evening. It is just the basics. Nothing more and nothing less than the basics. It is seeking the things of God in honest prayer, genuine and sincere repentance, baptism by water and by fire, studying the scriptures, obedience to the commandments of Christ, enduring to the end, and salvation only in the name and by the Grace of Christ. It is these basics that Nephi says are “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?

When we worship God, we worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost for they are one God. The three separate and distinct individuals are somewhat akin to a heavenly Presidency or Bishopric. In each case there are three separate individuals acting in unity with one another. We seek guidance from the Second Counselor of the Bishopric for our calling. We listen to the wisdom coming from First Counselor of the First Presidency. In each case, the Bishop or Prophet is in agreement with the counsel. In a much more perfect manner, when we go to our Heavenly Father in prayer, we know that Jesus is our intermediary and that the Holy Ghost is the messenger of truth. Each play a vital role in the communication between mortal man and the one eternal Godhead. Each member of the Godhead is omnipotent and omniscient and together - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - they are perfectly united in purpose and will. As separate and distinct members of one perfect, eternally united Godhead they are one God. And it is this one God whom we, the Latter-day Saints, worship.

[volgadon]

Of course, if there was such a practice, the texts in Revelation would make it clear that the practice was to be rejected. As a Christian, I consider the NT writings authoritative on this and all other religious and theological matters.

I'll engage your other points later, have to take my wife to an appointment soon, but I just want to be clear that I am certainly not saying that angel worship is a good thing.

[ChristKnight]

Hughes, I would be interested in reading your understanding of the Trinity is monotheistic, if, as 3DOP (and many others outside of this forum) has stated, the oneness of being/consubstantiality is referring more to nature, i.e. the essential attributes of the divine, the characteristics that make the Divine divine. If you have three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity, then how is this considered monotheistic?

[Hughes]

I find your self-definition most interesting. I've had occasion where I've thought I had observed otherwise. Perception is reality, I guess.

Not a problem. That quote is from the last half of the last verse of 2 Nephi chapter 31. In this chapter Nephi teaches in plainness the doctrine of Christ. It is that same doctrine which is taught every Sunday in Sacrament meeting, in every stake, regional and general conference and in every primary class, every young women’s and young men’s class, every Relief Society and Priesthood meeting and in each family during Family Home Evening. It is just the basics. Nothing more and nothing less than the basics. It is seeking the things of God in honest prayer, genuine and sincere repentance, baptism by water and by fire, studying the scriptures, obedience to the commandments of Christ, enduring to the end, and salvation only in the name and by the Grace of Christ. It is these basics that Nephi says are “the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God.”

When we worship God, we worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost for they are one God. The three separate and distinct individuals are somewhat akin to a heavenly Presidency or Bishopric. In each case there are three separate individuals acting in unity with one another. We seek guidance from the Second Counselor of the Bishopric for our calling. We listen to the wisdom coming from First Counselor of the First Presidency. In each case, the Bishop or Prophet is in agreement with the counsel. In a much more perfect manner, when we go to our Heavenly Father in prayer, we know that Jesus is our intermediary and that the Holy Ghost is the messenger of truth. Each play a vital role in the communication between mortal man and the one eternal Godhead. Each member of the Godhead is omnipotent and omniscient and together - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - they are perfectly united in purpose and will. As separate and distinct members of one perfect, eternally united Godhead they are one God. And it is this one God whom we, the Latter-day Saints, worship.

I don't understand how 3 can be considered one.

Hughes, I would be interested in reading your understanding of the Trinity is monotheistic, if, as 3DOP (and many others outside of this forum) has stated, the oneness of being/consubstantiality is referring more to nature, i.e. the essential attributes of the divine, the characteristics that make the Divine divine. If you have three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity, then how is this considered monotheistic?

This thread has prompted me to dig in and review and reread some stuff I studied long ago. Although, I have to fix the car tonight first... priorities. So, I'd love to answer your question, but can't, in all honesty do that yet. But, his comments are interesting in that it appears that "all creeds are wrong" doesn't appear to be correct, from an LDS perspective.

[elguanteloko]

If you have three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity, then how is this considered monotheistic?

That's easy.

Say they are one.

[ebeddoulos]

I don't understand how 3 can be considered one.

That statement comes from a trinitarian? And that same person also said: "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." Oh how deliciously entertaining!

Even you must admit that it is easier to comprehend how three persons can be considered one Bishopric or three person can be considered one First Presidency or three personages can be considered one God, than it is to comprehend the Athanasian Creed:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. But this is the Catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity; Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son; another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is the Holy Ghost. The Father is uncreated; the Son is uncreated; the Holy Ghost is uncreated. The Father is incomprehensible; the Son is incomprehensible; the Holy Ghost is incomprehensible. The Father is eternal; the Son is eternal; the Holy Ghost is eternal. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal. And also there are not three uncreated; nor three incomprehensible; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty; the Son is almighty; and the Holy Ghost is almighty. And yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by Himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say: there are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made; nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son not made; neither created; nor begotten, but proceeding. Thus there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this trinity none is before or after another, none greater nor less than another. But the whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the unity in trinity, and the trinity in unity is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The true faith is: we believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but He is inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because He is one person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ. He died for our salvation, descended to he11, arose from the dead on the third day. Ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their lives. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.”

[3DOP]

My beef is with the Nicene Creed as Hughes understands it. If you don’t understand the Nicene Creed in the same way that he understands it, you need to make that clear from the start so that he doesn’t think that you are arguing in his support, when you are not.

I agree. Too bad you did not make that clear enough from the outset, so that Hughes wrongly misunderstood you to be teaching the opposite.

Like I said, too bad you didn’t make that clear from the outset so Hughes wouldn’t get any wrong ideas, as he clearly did.

The reason why he said you had explained his position well is because he thought you were agreeing with him. Thank you for making it clear that you weren’t. It would have been even better if you had made that clear from the start, so that that misunderstanding had not arisen in the first place.

That is a different issue. Non-biblical language has the potential of being understood in non-biblical ways, and the development of Trinitarian theology is a case in point. “Consubstantial” is a non-biblical term. It is quite possible that what the Nicene Fathers understood by that word is not the same as what the modern Trinitarians understand by it; but if they had avoided the use of that term in the first place, or if they had confined themselves to biblical terms only, that difficulty would not have arisen; or if it had arisen, it could have been resolved by referring to the Bible.

Thankfully, Zerinus, participation on any thread does not imply an obligation to painstakingly discover what everybody else believes, or even take rigorous care to clarify and re-explain your own beliefs. I have no obligation, Zerinus, to know what Hughes believes or to contradict it if I perceive that we have differences of opinion. If you find my comments to be less of a weapon to use against Protestants than you would wish, it is not my responsibility to help you against the Evangelical. If I gave you a tool, do your own work. If you find my comparison of the word translated consubstantial as found in Nicea and Chalcedon to be pertinent to the thread, then you are free to use it. You are free to borrow a hammer if you want it, but that doesn't mean that I have to drive all the nails.

We might have to disagree on whether technical language is acceptable in the science of theology. You seem to think that theology should express itself only in a vocabulary that was extant before a concept had even become developed. To limit ourselves to the language of the Apostles is to deny the inevitable progress of theology as promised by Christ to the Church through the Holy Ghost. Continuing progress in the science of theology is called for apart from any growth in the original deposit. When natural science discovers a new truth, it isn't because the geologist discovers an information source that God has newly created. The same data, the same earth, reveals more information as science grows. The science grows without the original earth being added unto.

You are welcome to your growing canon. I am not saying anything against that. Certainly a new information source will make for growth in the science. I am only trying to understand why you insist on words that are only found in Scripture. It might be because of how you view the source data. Do you think that the only way for theology to grow is to get new canon? That would explain why you don't find any other language to be necessary. If so, as a Catholic I vehemently disagree, and say that it is analagous to other sciences where new technical language becomes necessary for clear, precise communications between those who want to know the intricacies. Theology is the only science where there is complaining because of the inevitable need for a growing vocabulary. Unless you want it to stand still, any science is going to develop new langauage. Can you imagine chiding with the psychologist, airplane mechanic, or astronomer because they do not limit themselves to the vocabulary of their professions as found in documents of generations past? Of course not. Neither can you reasonably require that Catholics always express newly developed ideas in language that is limited.

I am going to work again. I don't sit in front of a computer, but work outside. I cannot promise to clarify anything to you, Hughes, or anybody else. I close with a statment from the First Vatican Council about how the science of theology is not stagnant. It could be informative, and even helpful to those who might assume that a closed canon infers an end of the growth of theological knowledge.

Therefore...let the understanding , the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries...

---First Vatican Council, Session Three, Ch.4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870, Dezinger's (1800) Edited July 20, 2011 by 3DOP

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hughes, I would be interested in reading your understanding of the Trinity is monotheistic, if, as 3DOP (and many others outside of this forum) has stated, the oneness of being/consubstantiality is referring more to nature, i.e. the essential attributes of the divine, the characteristics that make the Divine divine. If you have three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity, then how is this considered monotheistic?

I you and a few others are the only one's that have helped the Trinity make any sense. The interesting thing is that it seems when explained as above, there really is not that much difference between this and LDS doctrine. Essentially that "three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity,". Now the LDS generally don't refer to the Godhead in these terms, as you may well know, but it is interesting that the idea that they all share in the Divine, is not such a bad idea. BUt the question you raise is the most important. I find that certain Christians try to force the Godhead into a monotheistic box when that is impossible. And as soon as they realize that, they will abandon their efforts.

[cdowis]

The LDS doctrine of the Trinity is found in this statement:

John 17 [20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

We accept the teaching of Christ, and reject the doctrine of man.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

My class this weekend will be on “Why we pray to the Father”, the comments I made will play a large part. So I will enjoy any feedback this might generate. So for all who will, help me with some material I can use in this effort.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

BTW, remember what Lincoln said, while quoting Christ…A house divided against itself cannot stand” If they are of one mind, that would mean one will, and if that one mind knows all things, how did Christ “learn obedience through the things which he suffered”.

I will be in Dublin, GA representing the State, so unless bored out of my mind I will not be contributing, I will be home on Saturday and will use material noted here…if proper to do so.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ChristKnight]

I don't understand how 3 can be considered one.

Except isn't that what the Trinity doctrine states, that there are three distinct Persons who are One?

This thread has prompted me to dig in and review and reread some stuff I studied long ago. Although, I have to fix the car tonight first... priorities. So, I'd love to answer your question, but can't, in all honesty do that yet. But, his comments are interesting in that it appears that "all creeds are wrong" doesn't appear to be correct, from an LDS perspective.

Ok, I await your response.

And no, while the comments provided by 3DOP show that there is actually a little more similarity between the traditional Trinity and the LDS Godhead doctrines as far as what "substance" is referring to (i.e. defined as the "essential attributes"), there are other aspects of the Trinity, related to the doctrine of consubstantiality that are rejected by the Church of Jesus Christ.

[ChristKnight]

I you and a few others are the only one's that have helped the Trinity make any sense. The interesting thing is that it seems when explained as above, there really is not that much difference between this and LDS doctrine. Essentially that "three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity,". Now the LDS generally don't refer to the Godhead in these terms, as you may well know, but it is interesting that the idea that they all share in the Divine, is not such a bad idea. BUt the question you raise is the most important. I find that certain Christians try to force the Godhead into a monotheistic box when that is impossible. And as soon as they realize that, they will abandon their efforts.

Yes, I agree. The Trinity really is not monotheistic. At most, it is as 3DOP states, a "nuanced monotheism".

[ChristKnight]

That's easy.

Say they are one.

This is really how it has been explained over at Catholic Answers Forum, for one. They are "one God" and it is monotheistic because...they are. The whole "three distinct Persons" part of the Trinity doctrine is usually ignored in such statements.

[zerinus]

Thankfully, Zerinus, participation on any thread does not imply an obligation to painstakingly discover what everybody else believes, or even take rigorous care to clarify and re-explain your own beliefs. I have no obligation, Zerinus, to know what Hughes believes or to contradict it if I perceive that we have differences of opinion. If you find my comments to be less of a weapon to use against Protestants than you would wish, it is not my responsibility to help you against the Evangelical. If I gave you a tool, do your own work. If you find my comparison of the word translated consubstantial as found in Nicea and Chalcedon to be pertinent to the thread, then you are free to use it. You are free to borrow a hammer if you want it, but that doesn't mean that I have to drive all the nails.

You have been jumping from pillar to post in this thread, and have moved the goal posts quite a few times. I was having a discussion with Hughes on the subject of the Trinity. You to butted into that discussion with comments (addressed to me) that by all appearance was supportive of his side of the argument, so much so that he understood that to be the case; and instead of answering me directly, he simply referred me to your post as indicative of his line of thinking. Then when in response to him I started picking your post apart, you started changing the goal posts so as to make it out that you were not speaking in support of his argument at all. It seems to me that there is something hypocritical in that methodology of debate.

We might have to disagree on whether technical language is acceptable in the science of theology. You seem to think that theology should express itself only in a vocabulary that was extant before a concept had even become developed. To limit ourselves to the language of the Apostles is to deny the inevitable progress of theology as promised by Christ to the Church through the Holy Ghost. Continuing progress in the science of theology is called for apart from any growth in the original deposit. When natural science discovers a new truth, it isn't because the geologist discovers an information source that God has newly created. The same data, the same earth, reveals more information as science grows. The science grows without the original earth being added unto.

You are welcome to your growing canon. I am not saying anything against that. Certainly a new information source will make for growth in the science. I am only trying to understand why you insist on words that are only found in Scripture. It might be because of how you view the source data. Do you think that the only way for theology to grow is to get new canon? That would explain why you don't find any other language to be necessary. If so, as a Catholic I vehemently disagree, and say that it is analagous to other sciences where new technical language becomes necessary for clear, precise communications between those who want to know the intricacies. Theology is the only science where there is complaining because of the inevitable need for a growing vocabulary. Unless you want it to stand still, any science is going to develop new langauage. Can you imagine chiding with the psychologist, airplane mechanic, or astronomer because they do not limit themselves to the vocabulary of their professions as found in documents of generations past? Of course not. Neither can you reasonably require that Catholics always express newly developed ideas in language that is limited.

I am going to work again. I don't sit in front of a computer, but work outside. I cannot promise to clarify anything to you, Hughes, or anybody else. I close with a statment from the First Vatican Council about how the science of theology is not stagnant. It could be informative, and even helpful to those who might assume that a closed canon infers an end of the growth of theological knowledge.

---First Vatican Council, Session Three, Ch.4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870, Dezinger's (1800)

I am not going to get bogged down in a “technicality” of anything. All I am saying is that if it is indeed true (by your own admission) that what the Nicene Fathers meant by “of one substance” in the creed is different from what the Trinitarian theologians understand by it today, and which has therefore led to such erroneous doctrinal errors regarding the Trinity that is prevalent today among Christians, that merely highlights the need for a standardization of theological terminology that can prevent those kinds of errors from occurring; and in my opinion the best way to ensure that standardization takes place is to derive theological terminology directly from Sacred Scripture.

[Hughes]

That statement comes from a trinitarian? And that same person also said: "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." Oh how deliciously entertaining!

Even you must admit that it is easier to comprehend how three persons can be considered one Bishopric or three person can be considered one First Presidency or three personages can be considered one God, than it is to comprehend the Athanasian Creed:

My question "How can three be one?" To the LDS is to understand how it can be, when they appear to attack the trinity for the same belief.

Thanks for the Athanasian Creed reminder. It sounds pretty good to me.

Except isn't that what the Trinity doctrine states, that there are three distinct Persons who are One?

Ok, I await your response.

And no, while the comments provided by 3DOP show that there is actually a little more similarity between the traditional Trinity and the LDS Godhead doctrines as far as what "substance" is referring to (i.e. defined as the "essential attributes"), there are other aspects of the Trinity, related to the doctrine of consubstantiality that are rejected by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Indeed the Doctrine of the Trinity does state that three persons, are one God. As the Athanasian Creed states.

Which aspects of "the same being" (consubstantiality) do the LDS church reject?

you also wrote:

Hughes, I would be interested in reading your understanding of the Trinity is monotheistic, if, as 3DOP (and many others outside of this forum) has stated, the oneness of being/consubstantiality is referring more to nature, i.e. the essential attributes of the divine, the characteristics that make the Divine divine. If you have three distinct Persons that each possess these essential attributes of deity, then how is this considered monotheistic?

Thinking about this the last couple days, it seems to me that the reason God must be One God (monotheistic) has to do with the nature of any infinite being. As an infinite being, there is no where, no place, no thing that this being isn't present, or existent.

So, while we worship One God, the nature of this infinite being contains what we understand as three persons. Which, normally for us, different persons, would indicate different "beings", yet this can't be so when referring to an infinite being, otherwise the being referred to wouldn't be infinite.

In essence, it seems to me that it's the nature of infinitude that forces a monotheistic view of God.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Hughes

[Storm Rider]

Thinking about this the last couple days, it seems to me that the reason God must be One God (monotheistic) has to do with the nature of any infinite being. As an infinite being, there is no where, no place, no thing that this being isn't present, or existent.

So, while we worship One God, the nature of this infinite being contains what we understand as three persons. Which, normally for us, different persons, would indicate different "beings", yet this can't be so when referring to an infinite being, otherwise the being referred to wouldn't be infinite.

In essence, it seems to me that it's the nature of infinitude that forces a monotheistic view of God.

I don't track this logic. To be an infinite being, which LDS believe God is, you are saying that because you see him manifested in three beings that is evidence of his being infinite? It seems circular. It seems to be that most Trinitarians dance between modalism and the orthodox view of the Trinity. It is the "substance" that unites them, not the fact that God is infinite. Do you think there can only be one infinite being? Jesus cannot be infinite at the same time as God? Why? If God shares his glory what does the recipient become? Can God share his glory?

I am not trying to derail the thread into a discussion on theosis or exaltation, but just focusing on the sharing of glory is the point.

God is not manifested in three persons and yet just one face; I am thinking of a Janus-like god on steroids. The Trinity, I think, explains them as three distinct persons, but they are one in the mystery of "substance" or essence.

It just does not make sense to me. Standing on scripture, it is just so much more logical, more apparent that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings/persons and one in purpose. They are one Godhead.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Storm Rider

[Anakin7]

From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/whoisjesus.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited July 21, 2011 by Anakin7

[altersteve]

My question "How can three be one?" To the LDS is to understand how it can be, when they appear to attack the trinity for the same belief.

Latter-day Saints reject the Trinity because it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three consubstantial beings united in essence or substance as one being that has no essence or substance. This is what doesn't make any sense, and what is false. Instead, they are united in every other way—in heart, mind, intent, purpose, glory, power, love, light, etc. This is how they are one. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. It's like how the Bible says that a man and wife are "one flesh." Obviously this is not to be taken literally. Rather, they are one in the sense that a person is (or, at least, should be) united with his or her spouse in all other ways.

[Flyonthewall]

Whenever I hear a description of the Trinity that says 3 distinct persons in one "being", that is Divine attributes, or they are one God because they each share Divine attributes, then it makes me come to the conclusion that the One God is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but is the Divine attributes which they share. That way God can be one being(divine attributes) in 3 persons.

Yet if I follow that out, then anyone that becomes "one" with Jesus as He is "one" with the Father, meaning they too, share divine attributes, then that person becomes part of the Godhead, which of course means the Trinity is no more, it is now a Quadrinity...and so on and so forth until all that are "saved" become a part of the Godhead.

I don't think anyone would agree with that, but that is where that trail leads me.