Poll On Mitt And Trinity Is Flawed

[ERayR]

I would suggest you read the C.S. Lewis chapter in Mere Christianity on Making and Begetting. When Christians say that Jesus was God's Only Begotten Son they are talking about what happened before time began, not at what happened when he was born of the Virgin Mary. It has nothing to do with a physical birth.

I don't know that what you are saying is much different than Lewis' understanding that we are meant to become little gods. That doesn't mean we become God.

I know who C. S. Lewis was. He had some interesting insights. What I guess I didn't know is that he was a prophet.

[altersteve]

It means the Father authored someone exactly like yourself before time begins -- there is no before or after about it. There is no creation about it. It just is. That is why Jesus could refer to himself by the name "I Am". Jesus is not the Father, but there never was a time when he didn't exist as God the Son.

To "beget" or "author" something means to "create." So which is it?

Jesus referred to Himself as I AM because He is the everlasting God of heaven and earth. Remember, Latter-day Saints understand "eternity" a little differently than other Christians do. Eternal is one of God's names, so to say that God is eternal means that God is God. It does not mean that He has always been exactly as He is right now, which in turn does not mean that God changes. God progresses. To change and to progress are two very different concepts with two very different meanings. Eternal progression is to progress to become like God, who also continues to progress in glory. His glory is increased as we progress to become like Him. This means that as we progress, He progresses, which gives Him glory that He then shares with us, allowing us to progress even more. It's a continuous cycle, and that's what Christ meant when He called Himself "I AM." He is saying, "I AM God, and I AM eternal; I AM eternally God," just as you said. Obviously, though, Jesus progressed from having no body, then having a body, then having a perfected, glorified, immortal body like His Father's and becoming perfectly united with Him, and He did it so that we can do the same thing. Just as Christ is (I AM), we can also be, through Him.

Furthermore, we are all eternal in LDS theology. We have always existed in some form or another, just as God the Father and Jesus Christ have, in the form of individual intelligences, which I personally understand to mean the core of who we are.

How about because he was eternally foreordained to be so? Do you think there was ever a time when he wasn't the Son of God?

No, I do not. Christ has always been the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior, Creator, and Judge of all mankind.

Edited September 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Bart Burk]

I know who C. S. Lewis was. He had some interesting insights. What I guess I didn't know is that he was a prophet.

No, but he explains things from the traditional Christian viewpoint better than I can. So I'm suggesting him as a good person to consult if the LDS want to understand what traditional Christianity teaches. He explains the issue of eternal begetting rather well in my opinion. So if you want to know what the traditional Christian viewpoint on that is you can read it there. Do LDS prophets believe that Jesus was always God? Mormon scriptures seem to take Jesus Being as eternally God for granted according to the introduction to the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith translated:

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

and also 2 Nephi 26:12:

And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God

and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28:

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

and Alma 11:44:

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Mormons are in a relatively good position to assert the doctrine of the Trinity. How God received a body could just be a mystery. Of course that is easily resolved. An omnipotent God wouldn't have any trouble getting a body for Himself.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Bart Burk

[altersteve]

Bart, as I have said, Latter-day Saints believe that God (the Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit) has eternally been God, just not exactly as He is now. There is no contradiction between this and the verses you quoted.

[Bart Burk]

To "beget" or "author" something means to "create." So which is it?

Jesus referred to Himself as I AM because He is the everlasting God of heaven and earth. Remember, Latter-day Saints understand "eternity" a little differently than other Christians do. Eternal is one of God's names, so to say that God is eternal means that God is God. It does not mean that He has always been exactly as He is right now, which in turn does not mean that God changes. God progresses. To change and to progress are two very different concepts with two very different meanings. Eternal progression is to progress to become like God, who also continues to progress in glory. His glory is increased as we progress to become like Him. This means that as we progress, He progresses, which gives Him glory that He then shares with us, allowing us to progress even more. It's a continuous cycle, and that's what Christ meant when He called Himself "I AM." He is saying, "I AM God, and I AM eternal; I AM eternally God," just as you said. Obviously, though, Jesus progressed from having no body, then having a body, then having a perfected, glorified, immortal body like His Father's and becoming perfectly united with Him, and He did it so that we can do the same thing. Just as Christ is (I AM), we can also be, through Him.

Furthermore, we are all eternal in LDS theology. We have always existed in some form or another, just as God the Father and Jesus Christ have, in the form of individual intelligences, which I personally understand to mean the core of who we are.

No, I do not. Christ has always been the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior, Creator, and Judge of all mankind.

Again, I suggest Lewis' making and begetting chapter. Making means to create. Beget doesn't mean that in traditional Christianity. It means to cause something to happen or exist.

http://www.learnersd...om/search/beget

As to the rest of your post, the Bible at least sees Jesus taking upon Himself a body as something else:

Philippians 2:5-11:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the ^aform of God, thought it not robbery to be ^bequal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a ^aservant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in ^afashion as a man, he ^bhumbled himself, and became ^cobedient unto ^ddeath, even the ^edeath of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly ^aexalted him, and given him a ^bname which is above every name:

10 That at the ^aname of Jesus every ^bknee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is ^aLord, to the glory of God the Father.

I don't think it is necessarily true that Jesus' receiving a body was a necessary process of progression for him. As God he could have obtained a body anyway without going through all the trouble of being born of the Virgin Mary. He chose to do that. He was already fully God before He came to earth. He humbled himself to become one of us.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Bart Burk

[BCSpace]

Why can't people get it through their heads that traditional Christians don't believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three beings in one body or substance, but three separate persons who have exactly the same substance or being?

I keep trying.

[Bart Burk]

Bart, as I have said, Latter-day Saints believe that God (the Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit) has eternally been God, just not exactly as He is now. There is no contradiction between this and the verses you quoted.

So in what way were they different while they were eternally God? Is it a change in their essential Being or a change in some other way? Again I think LDS and traditional Christians can sometimes talk past each other when there really is no substantial difference in what they believe. Now if you're committed to the idea that God was once a non-God man with a different God as a Father who progressed to become one of many Gods then there is a difference. I'm just not sure that many LDS who have really thought that through are satisfied with God being a mortal man who progressed to become a God.

The biggest question I have about some thinking in LDS theology is the belief that God just happened to be a more advanced intelligence who progressed to become a God. LDS scriptures seem to indicate that God ruled over the intelligences rather than coming from them. Intelligence was uncreated and eternally co-existed with God, but that doesn't mean that God was less than God.

[Bart Burk]

I keep trying.

And I appreciate it. What I sometimes get annoyed at is traditional Christians who can't see that the LDS Godhead isn't that much different from their traditional Trinity. I think there is an awful lot of trying to score points on both sides instead of coming to a real understanding of the other's position. I think a lot of what we consider to be differences are just semantics. That's why I would like to see the LDS use the term persons to describe the Godhead instead of beings -- it's a small thing in some ways, but it would lead to a better understanding. What the LDS mean by Being and what traditional Christians mean by Being are completely different. A good start for LDS towards helping people understand them might be to simply use person instead of being. For example if Mormons simply deleted the term Triune out of this statement of faith, where would they disagree with it?

GOD.There is but one eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit— who is the creator and sustainer of all things (Deuteronomy 6:4-5; 1 Timothy 2:5).

JESUS CHRIST.

He is God incarnate, yet human. He lived a sinless life, died to make atonement for the sins of all mankind, was bodily resurrected and is now mediator at the right hand of the Father. He is assuredly coming in power and glory for His believing followers, and is the only Savior of men (John 1:1, 14; Titus 2:11-14).

HOLY SPIRIT.

He convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, regenerating all who repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He sanctifies, empowers, teaches, guides and comforts the believers (John 16:7,8, 12-15).

The term Triune isn't necessary once you say there is one. I should note that people like Talmadge didn't shy away from the use of the word Trinity. Here is where the above statement came from:

http://www.mcusa.org...re/Beliefs.aspx

Edited September 14, 2011 by Bart Burk

[BCSpace]

I keep trying.

And I appreciate it. What I sometimes get annoyed at is traditional Christians who can't see that the LDS Godhead isn't that much different from their traditional Trinity.

Well, you're not going to like this, but I get annoyed when LDS communicate a close similarity between the LDS Godhead and the trinity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What the LDS mean by Being and what traditional Christians mean by Being are completely different.

It is a huge difference.

A good start for LDS towards helping people understand them might be to simply use person instead of being.

A person and a being are one and the same in the LDS vernacular.

For example if Mormons simply deleted the term Triune out of this statement of faith, where would they disagree with it?

No. For example, in the first one, all Three are separate individual Gods in the LDS case. The Father over over all because of the concept of subordinationism which isn't extant in the trinity doctrine. The Father is the Creator because He commanded it. The Son is the Creator because he executed it. The Holy Spirit likely aided in the creation but we don't know it as well as the other two.

I see no real conflict with the other two except to ask, because of the implication, do you as a trinitarian believe that the Father and Son each have physical, anthropomorphic bodies? There is another likely and very significant difference.

I should note that people like Talmadge didn't shy away from the use of the word Trinity

I am critical of that because I think it's disengenuous whether it's meant to be or not. Simply naming and believing in the Three does not the trinity or the LDS Godhead make.

Edited September 14, 2011 by BCSpace

[Bart Burk]

Well, you're not going to like this, but I get annoyed when LDS communicate a close similarity between the LDS Godhead and the trinity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a huge difference.

A person and a being are one and the same in the LDS vernacular.

No. For example, in the first one, all Three are separate individual Gods in the LDS case. The Father over over all because of the concept of subordinationism which isn't extant in the trinity doctrine. The Father is the Creator because He commanded it. The Son is the Creator because he executed it. The Holy Spirit likely aided in the creation but we don't know it as well as the other two.

I see no real conflict with the other two except to ask, because of the implication, do you as a trinitarian believe that the Father and Son each have physical, anthropomorphic bodies? There is another likely and very significant difference.

I am critical of that because I think it's disengenuous whether it's meant to be or not. Simply naming and believing in the Three does not the trinity or the LDS Godhead make.

I don't think the belief the Father and the Son have physical bodies would invalidate the Trinity at all. As long as all the members of the Godhead are eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient we are in agreement on the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equally God, but the Son and the Holy Ghost voluntarily submit their wills to the Father's will. That is not in conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is not subordinate because he is a lesser God. The Mormon scriptures always refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one eternal God, not three eternal Gods. I am suggesting Mormonism use scriptural language when communicating their doctrine. It doesn't help Mormons to refer to them as three Gods when the Mormon scriptures assert just the opposite.

[mrmandias]

A person and a being are one and the same in the LDS vernacular.

They are also one and the same in the English vernacular. This is why so many average-joe Christians are functionally modalists.

To avoid confusion, American catholics should adopt Mormon terminology.

[mrmandias]

A person and a being are one and the same in the LDS vernacular.

They are also one and the same in the English vernacular. This is why so many average-joe Christians are functionally modalists.

To avoid confusion, American catholics should adopt Mormon terminology.

[BlueDreams]

Why can't people get it through their heads that traditional Christians don't believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three beings in one body or substance, but three separate persons who have exactly the same substance or being? Since God is immaterial in traditional Christian thought we would never say that Father, Son and Holy Ghost have one body. They don't have any body as God. Christ has a body as a man in which he is fully human and fully God, but there is no thought of the Trinity having the same body. The same substance means they all have exactly the same essence or attributes or being.

huh...I think this is the closest I've come to understanding the Trinity (the egg/ice explanation never made since to me). In my mind I'm seeing it like chocolate cake. Father Son and Holy Spirit are like three cakes. They may be decorated differently but they're all made out of chocolate (cuz that's the best cake flavor). Is that sort of what you mean?

Again, any idea the Trinity is one in body is flawed so the question is ridiculous. I have never figured out why Mormons just don't say Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons who have exactly the same attributes. That's essentially the Trinity! Sure Mormons believe the three separate persons each have separate bodies as well, but that doesn't rule out all of them having exactly the same attributes. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems sometimes we are arguing over very small matters. The bigger matter is whether God and man are ontologically the same, but that really doesn't have to be argued at the same time as Trinity.

I can see your point a bit. Like I said, I've never had the trinity explained till today in a way where it made sense to me, really. But I still think the distinction is very important. It's like putting a little too much salt on something....it just a small difference but you know it's not going to taste good (can you tell it's lunch time for me btw). For one I wouldn't state it's just mormons who struggle with the idea of the trinity and the trinity is not universally understood as the same way that you mentioned. On another, personally I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that the have exactly the same attributes. They don't in my mind. Both bodily presence, roles, and personality are factored in in my mind to their attributes which they are very much distinctive.

And to me the small issue between the trinity v. godhead and the seemingly bigger issue of ontology are two sides of the same coin. It is precisely how the godhead is seen by LDS that leads to our understanding of our own relationship to God. Personally, that's what bothers me about the Trinity: it places God on a level seperate and therefore not as intimately linked to humanity. God is always something unreachable by mankind becaause the nature is so distinctively different from our own.

Just my 2 cents

With luv,

BD

[Bart Burk]

They are also one and the same in the English vernacular. This is why so many average-joe Christians are functionally modalists.

To avoid confusion, American catholics should adopt Mormon terminology.

The Catholics and Protestants used the terms first so they get to define them ... of course the Nicene Creed in the Catholic Church is going to go back to being more faithful to the original Latin this fall. Right now the creed says, "one in being with the Father" and it will change to say "consubstantial with the Father" which is a better translation of the Latin. The creed doesn't use the word "persons" at all. It assumes that people understand through simple logic that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons.

[altersteve]

Again, I suggest Lewis' making and begetting chapter. Making means to create. Beget doesn't mean that in traditional Christianity. It means to cause something to happen or exist.

I've read it. Regardless, "beget" means to create. It doesn't matter what "traditional Christianity" says it means, that's not the standard, accepted definition.

I don't think it is necessarily true that Jesus' receiving a body was a necessary process of progression for him. As God he could have obtained a body anyway without going through all the trouble of being born of the Virgin Mary. He chose to do that. He was already fully God before He came to earth. He humbled himself to become one of us.

We are both correct. It was both a choice and a progression for Him. Obtaining a body is necessary to receive the fullness of joy. The lack of a body is bondage.

So in what way were they different while they were eternally God? Is it a change in their essential Being or a change in some other way? Again I think LDS and traditional Christians can sometimes talk past each other when there really is no substantial difference in what they believe. Now if you're committed to the idea that God was once a non-God man with a different God as a Father who progressed to become one of many Gods then there is a difference. I'm just not sure that many LDS who have really thought that through are satisfied with God being a mortal man who progressed to become a God.

I don't believe God was once not God, simply a "non-God man" who progressed to become as He is now. That's not LDS doctrine. I do, however, believe that the Father passed through mortality, just like Jesus Christ and the rest of us did.

The biggest question I have about some thinking in LDS theology is the belief that God just happened to be a more advanced intelligence who progressed to become a God. LDS scriptures seem to indicate that God ruled over the intelligences rather than coming from them. Intelligence was uncreated and eternally co-existed with God, but that doesn't mean that God was less than God.

You won't hear any disagreements from me.

[Vance]

. . . but three separate persons who have exactly the same substance or being?

Could you explain to me what this means exactly?

Does it mean the three persons are one being (entity)? or,

Does it mean the three persons are three separate beings (entities) of the same kind of substance? or, state of being, or

Something else?

[Bart Burk]

Could you explain to me what this means exactly?

Does it mean the three persons are one being (entity)? or,

Does it mean the three persons are three separate beings (entities) of the same kind of substance? or, state of being, or

Something else?

It means they are three separate persons who are eternally God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. They are three persons, not one person, who all share the exact same attributes of Godliness. The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality.

[Bart Burk]

I've read it. Regardless, "beget" means to create. It doesn't matter what "traditional Christianity" says it means, that's not the standard, accepted definition.

We are both correct. It was both a choice and a progression for Him. Obtaining a body is necessary to receive the fullness of joy. The lack of a body is bondage.

I don't believe God was once not God, simply a "non-God man" who progressed to become as He is now. That's not LDS doctrine. I do, however, believe that the Father passed through mortality, just like Jesus Christ and the rest of us did.

You won't hear any disagreements from me.

I gave you the standard definition in the dictionary and it wasn't create. It was cause something to come into existence. It didn't have to do with siring anyone. Jesus just existed with the Father as part of the nature of the eternal God. He didn't come after the Father. I don't believe Jesus was in bondage before he received a physical body.

[Bart Burk]

huh...I think this is the closest I've come to understanding the Trinity (the egg/ice explanation never made since to me). In my mind I'm seeing it like chocolate cake. Father Son and Holy Spirit are like three cakes. They may be decorated differently but they're all made out of chocolate (cuz that's the best cake flavor). Is that sort of what you mean?

I can see your point a bit. Like I said, I've never had the trinity explained till today in a way where it made sense to me, really. But I still think the distinction is very important. It's like putting a little too much salt on something....it just a small difference but you know it's not going to taste good (can you tell it's lunch time for me btw). For one I wouldn't state it's just mormons who struggle with the idea of the trinity and the trinity is not universally understood as the same way that you mentioned. On another, personally I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that the have exactly the same attributes. They don't in my mind. Both bodily presence, roles, and personality are factored in in my mind to their attributes which they are very much distinctive.

And to me the small issue between the trinity v. godhead and the seemingly bigger issue of ontology are two sides of the same coin. It is precisely how the godhead is seen by LDS that leads to our understanding of our own relationship to God. Personally, that's what bothers me about the Trinity: it places God on a level seperate and therefore not as intimately linked to humanity. God is always something unreachable by mankind becaause the nature is so distinctively different from our own.

Just my 2 cents

With luv,

BD

That's why Jesus became a man. Jesus links God and man perfectly through his incarnation.

[Katzpur]

In my experience on other forums which I post on more frequently than this one, the issue really does get down to what is meant by the term "substance" or "essence." I think that if, when trinitarian Christians speak of God's essence, they are speaking of the qualities which make Him divine, it would be reasonably accurate for us Mormons to agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one in essnece." They all share the same divine attributes -- perfect and absolute knowledge, power, love, justice, etc. Since we don't use the words, "substance" or "essence" in our religious dialogue, we tend to assume that they are referring to God's physical make-up. Obviously, that causes us to question the logic of how a Father and a Son could both be the same substance. For instance, how can a single substance be both incorporeal (as traditional Christianity teaches that the Father is) and corporeal (as it teaches the Son at least was during His mortal life). I have tried unsuccessfully, more times than I can count, to get to the bottom of the issue as to what a trinitarian Christian means when they use the words "substance" and/or "essence." If they could do that, it would help us come to a better understanding of what they actually believe, in my opinion.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Katzpur

[Calm]

Back to the OP. The wording is unfortunate and could have been avoided by checking with someone familiar with the issues or even by just using the exact wording of the creeds.It may have caused some problems with people wondering do we answer the question asked or the question he meant to ask.

[3DOP]

It wouldn't hurt for Mormons to give a little more thought to what they are saying. Too often they do attack modalism in the name of the Trinity. Traditional Christians don't wrangle about the Trinity -- they accept it. Mormons are the ones wrangling about the Trinity against Christians when the divide could easily be bridged. Is there a good reason for Mormons to proclaim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods when the claim of Mormon scriptures is exactly the opposite? Why not just use the word "Persons" instead of "Beings" when describing the Godhead since generally what Mormons mean by Beings is very much the same thing that traditional Christians mean by Persons? Why not balance the emphasis on the oneness of God and the emphasis on their distinctness? There is no doubt there are relationships and different roles within the Godhead, but that doesn't change the fact they are the same in their attributes.

I am not suggesting that Mormons give up their belief that God the Father has a body. That issue is not addressed in the doctrine of the Trinity -- the point of the Trinity is the eternal nature of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as equally God, not whether or not the Father has a body.

Bart. Hi. Good questions. The reason, in my Catholic opinion, why Latter-day Saints tend to emphasize differences over agreement, is that there is a need in Mormon thought to disagree with us. After all, unless we are messed up enough to make God take away the priesthood (apostasy), Joseph Smith has no claim.

[Calm]

<br />It means they are three separate persons who are eternally God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent.  They are three persons, not one person, who all share the exact same attributes of Godliness. The term Being does not describe something physical, but a spiritual reality.<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br />But there is a difference in just persons sharing attributes and being one being.  I can share the same attributes as my siblings--the attributes that define us as members of our family---but that does not make the family a 'being', rather it is an association of beings.<br /><br />Unless one is willing to define a spiritual being in the same terms as a collective of physical beings (and you will be the first in my experience unless I have deeply misunderstood other conversations....including one where after studying the CCC I came to the conclusion that LDS and Catholic thought was much closer tha I had originally thought the) the closest one can get is by comparing the terms Godhead with Trinity. Edited September 15, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

<br />I gave you the standard definition in the dictionary and it wasn't create.  It was cause something to come into existence.  It didn't have to do with siring anyone. Jesus just existed with the Father as part of the nature of the eternal God. />

But to cause something to come into existence implies that one existed prior to the other, otherwise how can it be said to be the cause and not just some things that correlate?

[Calm]

<br />Bart. Hi. Good questions. The reason, in my Catholic opinion, why Latter-day Saints tend to emphasize differences over agreement,  is that there is a need in Mormon thought to disagree with us. After all, unless we are messed up enough to make God take away the priesthood (apostasy), Joseph Smith has no claim.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think it is much more than that. Individuality and independence**** is a huge aspect of LDS thought. The classical Trinity appears to LDS to blur that to a certain extent.

****not referring to how God has given us all, but to the fundamental eternal nature of mankind.