Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[Verum]

-This makes no sense to me. It seems to confuse not only the subject (God) with the object (mankind), but also it confuses the nature of the subject (the anthropomorphism of God) with the subject itself (God)--it is not the anthropomorphism of God that is worshiped, but God, himself.it is not the anthropomorphism of God that is worshiped, but God, himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't this just another way of framing the classic philosophical question: Did God create man or did man create God? (Hey, chiasmus!)

If man created God, I think it would be appropriate that he be anthropomorphic since it elevates the status, potential, and benefit of man. The anthropomorphic God is more loving and his human-like nature is personalized. Of course, man has created all kinds of non-human Gods, so I don't necessarily think the belief in an anthropomorphic God itself is any evidence for the argument that man created God....

On the other hand,

[volgadon]

But I maintain that this wasn't as strong a belief as you seem to think, and there is evidence for this to be found in the fact that orthodox Jewish philosophers had little problem adopting those Hellenized ideas about God that put to rest the view that God appeared as an anthropomorphic being, therefore that's what he is.

You are taking a small group of Alexandrian Jews who authored decidedly apologetic literature, and using them as the default position. In the process you are ignoring the historical and intellectual contexts.

[wenglund]

By the same token the absence of a trunk (like an elephant) is a limitation as is the absence of flippers or gills.

This might make sense to someone with cognitive limitations, but for those of us who understand that limitations tend to be defined by the subjects intended functionality, we would not assume something as absurd as to think that God would be limited by not having an elephant trunk, just as we would not assume that an electron microscope is limited by not having a sewing bobbin.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Isn't this just another way of framing the classic philosophical question: Did God create man or did man create God? (Hey, chiasmus!)

No. It is just your way of trying to deflect attention away from your evident confusion.

If man created God, I think it would be appropriate that he be anthropomorphic since it elevates the status, potential, and benefit of man.

Your wild assumption doesn't comport with the large segment of humanity who do not believe in an anthropomorphic God and/or who view Godhood as unattainable.

The anthropomorphic God is more loving and his human-like nature is personalized. Of course, man has created all kinds of non-human Gods, so I don't necessarily think the belief in an anthropomorphic God itself is any evidence for the argument that man created God.... On the other hand,

There is no "other hand." Your line of "reasoning" is entirely inadequate for answering your deflective question. Sorry.

However, if you would like an answer to your question, you might try asking God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

You are taking a small group of Alexandrian Jews who authored decidedly apologetic literature, and using them as the default position. In the process you are ignoring the historical and intellectual contexts.

On further thought, that despite the exposure to Hellenistic thought and culture relatively few Jews adapted the allegorical approach to anthropomorphism would speak to the strength of the anthropomorphic tradition.

[mfbukowski]

On further thought, that despite the exposure to Hellenistic thought and culture relatively few Jews adapted the allegorical approach to anthropomorphism would speak to the strength of the anthropomorphic tradition.

I think you are quite right- and the phenomenon I described above drawing a parallel about the Broadway play making fun of Mormons, though of course s made in fun, actually is evidence of this being true.

No matter how often it is attacked, it appears to be an idea which keeps coming back again and again. I think it resonates deeply with humanity because it speaks to our natural desire to think about what each of us might be like if we were perfect. It is quite natural to think in terms of God being like ourselves, but infinitely better.

The entire struggle of Christian theology over the last 2000 years has been precisely how to keep a Neoplatonic theology full of omniscience and transcendence and yet resolve that with a personal God. They have tried to resolve the unresolvable precisely because no one could ever fully abandon anthropomorphism.

Abstract universal forces are not something someone prays to, nor do they comfort you in times of need. A glorified Father, on the other hand is entirely different. After all, we all have fathers, none of whom are perfect, but most of whom would like to do better. And each of us probably have a clear imagination of the characteristics necessary to make our individual fathers "perfect".

I think the need to have at least a concept of an idealized father (and mother) is basic to human psychology, and is undoubtedly a key element in forming our own views of parenting. And it is a short step from there to see God as that being.

[Verum]

No. It is just your way of trying to deflect attention away from your evident confusion.

Wow. Glad you have it all figured out. I actually thought my response was very relevant here.. You responded to my post where I said "some people see this doctrine as a form of man worshiping himself" by basically saying that those who hold this view are confusing worshiping an anthropomorphic God with worshiping the anthropomorphism of God. I replied by saying that this isn't necessarily a confusion of worship but more about whether one believes in a human God or in a human-made God. Those who believe in a human-made God are obviously going to believe more in man's inclination to create God in man's image than in a God that created man in his. I am not arguing that God is man-made or that man is just worshiping himself, I am just trying to stimulate a discussion as to whether there is any relevance to this point of view.There are many historical and cultural examples of God being a reflection of the influence of the culture of its inhabitants. Is it man's way of emulating himself as God, or in other words, is man creating God in his own image?

There is no "other hand." Your line of "reasoning" is entirely inadequate for answering your deflective question. Sorry.

However, if you would like an answer to your question, you might try asking God.

I think you're overly sensitive response is entirely inadequate for having any kind of constructive discussion with those with differing points of views than yours...

Edited March 14, 2012 by Verum

[wenglund]

Wow. Glad you have it all figured out. I actually thought my response was very relevant here.. You responded to my post where I said "some people see this doctrine as a form of man worshiping himself" by basically saying that those who hold this view are confusing worshiping an anthropomorphic God with worshiping the anthropomorphism of God. I replied by saying that this isn't necessarily a confusion of worship but more about whether one believes in a human God or in a human-made God. Those who believe in a human-made God are obviously going to believe more in man's inclination to create God in man's image than in a God that created man in his. I am not arguing that God is man-made or that man is just worshiping himself, I am just trying to stimulate a discussion as to whether there is any relevance to this point of view.There are many historical and cultural examples of God being a reflection of the influence of the culture of its inhabitants. Is it man's way of emulating himself as God, or in other words, is man creating God in his own image?

Do you not see how this approach not only begs the question, but it presents a false dichotomy--your best intents not withstanding? Do you not see the confusion?

The fact that different cultures have divergent, and in some cases contradictory beliefs about God, simply tells us that not all cultures may be correct in their beliefs, and that some may have created God in their own image. It doesn't tell us which, if any of the cultures, or the extent to which they may have done this.

The only valid method for determining whether, or the extent to which, a given people have created God in their own image or God created them in his image, is to learn of the true nature of God--he, then, is rightly the standard for such determinations.

And, the best way to learn this is, as I previously intimated, to ask God and let him reveal himself to us. That way we humans may minimize the chances of our creating a God to be used to determine if certain God's have been created by humans.

For that matter, a possible shorthand approach to answering your question might be to determine whether, or the extent to which, a given people have asked God, and let God reveal himself to them.

In short, at this time here on earth, there is no definitive answer to the question you posed. It is a matter of personal faith and not amenable to productive interfaith discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2012 by wenglund

[Verum]

And, the best way to learn this is, as I previously intimated, to ask God and let him reveal himself to us. That way we humans may minimize the chances of our creating a God to be used to determine if certain God's have been created by humans.

For that matter, a possible shorthand approach to answering your question might be to determine whether, or the extent to which, a given people have asked God, and let God reveal himself to them.

In short, at this time here on earth, there is no definitive answer to the question you posed. It is a matter of personal faith and not amenable to productive interfaith discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree. I just wanted to point out how others view this doctrine, and whether there was any legitimacy to it from a skeptical or philosophical point of view.

[mfbukowski]

One of the things I love about Mormonism is the way that nearly all religions can be seen to be a part of the grand plan of the gospel as we see it. Taoism can be seen as an enlargement of the notion that there is "opposition in all things", Zoroastrianism can be seen as worshiping the Light of Christ, other religions which worship their ancestors I think are apostate forms of our notion of temple work for the dead, and our bodily God of flesh and bones can communicate to those who worship humanism. Those religions which practice meditation and mysticism are reflected in our insistence on the importance of personal revelation and communion with the Spirit.

I think that is the meaning of the notion that there is "truth in all religions", but on the other hand I think we are the only one which incorporates all these diverse ideas in one comprehensive view.

It's all right here encapsulated in the Gospel.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

One of the things I love about Mormonism is the way that nearly all religions can be seen to be a part of the grand plan of the gospel as we see it.

Amen. As Nibley pointed out in 'A Stage Without a Play' (Part 1, Part 2), there are elements of truth in the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hindu systems; the system outlined by Joseph Smith really is the Restoration of the ancient gospel. As he said in 'On The Sacred And The Symbolic' (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4):

"One can easily detect familiar echoes of the endowment in religious institutions and practices throughout the world. The phenomenon is readily explained by Joseph Smith; and students of comparative religion have now come around to the same conclusion, namely, that the real endowment has been on earth from time to time and has also been spread abroad in corrupted forms so that fragments from all parts of the world can be traced back to common beginnings. 'It is reasonable to suppose,' wrote Joseph Smith, 'that man departed from the first teachings, or instructions which he received from heaven in the first age, and refused by his disobedience to be governed by them.'

'But [...] man was not able himself to erect a system or plan with power sufficient to free him from a destruction which awaited him'; hence it was necessary to put him on the track again, as 'from time to time these glad tidings were sounded in the ears of men in different ages of the world.' [...] The cosmic connection is never missing from this archaic knowledge, as is well known today, and the Prophet wrote, 'For our own part we cannot believe that the ancients in all ages were so ignorant of the system of heaven as many suppose.'"

[saemo]

Did you stop beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Obviously some questions are not best answered by yes or no.

Define "attribute". How does one "have" an attribute? Do you put them in your pocket?

The point I am making is that "attributes" are descriptions, and are not "real". They are not observations- they are literally something we "attribute" to someone else.

If you want to define God that way, if you like that word, we can describe God that way too. It won't be the same description- because guess what- we don't believe what you believe.

I wasn't asking if you beat your wife, or trying to trick you into admitting that you do.

God most certainly has attributes, Mormons claiming one attribute is corporality.

[saemo]

Now we are actually on the same page. The bottom line for me is experience- and yes I also experience God as omnipresent. I have never been anywhere where he as not been.

But then again I have never been outside myself.

Reading through the posts here by LDS, the distinction I see is a lack of transcendence. The Mormon idea of God doesn't have the quality of transcendence, which is to me, very secular. Your comment that you have never been outside yourself, indicating that something about transcendence, but I'm not sure exactly if you are saying God is like you, or that you are not like God.

Edited March 14, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

Reading through the posts here by LDS, the distinction I see is a lack of transcendence. The Mormon idea of God doesn't have the quality of transcendence, which is to me, very secular. Your comment that you have never been outside yourself, indicating that something about transcendence, but I'm not sure exactly if you are saying God is like you, or that you are not like God.

Well I must admit that was not a well-written post on my part, Your original statement which started this discussion was:

I was thinking in a Mormon context, and what is taught. Googled at lds.org, which basically says the same thing you have. God is omnipresent, but then God is not omnipresent.

In a Catholic context, I'm OK with this, as it conveys God's omnipresence as being experiential, as well as universal. i.e., as we experience God's presence, God is here, now. As God is (His nature), He is present to more than just myself, here and now.

What we believe is that we can experience God's influence (I used the word "presence" which was misleading) wherever we are through the Light of Christ and/or the Holy Ghost.

That does not mean that God is bodily where we are- we can just communicate with him wherever we are. I think perhaps the notion of omnipresence was a way of understanding how one could communicate with God when he wasn't physically present where we were- certainly 1500 years ago, one could not communicate with anyone instantly who was some distance away- so perhaps it made sense to believe that if we could pray anywhere, then God must "be" anywhere.

I was agreeing with you that we can experience communication with God wherever we are- that was my point. But that does not mean that God IS "where we are"

And yes, LDS do believe in an immanent God, one who is not transcendent in the usual philosophical sense. But there is a serious problem in my opinion and others as well with the logical possibility of a personal God who IS transcendent. In my opinion, the idea that God is transcendent - or more precisely the entire notion of transcendence itself- is a product of pagan Greek philosophy and in that context was NEVER associated with a personal God.

Clearly Greeks believed in gods, but they were not transcendent. Platonic transcendence in fact holds that this world in which we live is a world of illusion, and that reality exists in Universals, or Forms or Ideas.

http://plato-dialogues.org/email/960211_1.htm

The first problem with your question is that you talk of "God" with a capital G. This doesn't exist in Plato, and, for that matter in ancient greek litterature, because God is not the name of a person but a common noun. Thus Plato speaks of "the gods (hoi theoi), or "the god (ho theos)", in some cases of "god", but then in the same way we would talk of "man", using the word as a generic name. He also speaks of "the divine (to theion)".

Thus, if by "God" you mean the god of christianity, Yawhe, the Holy Trinity and the like, there is none of it in Plato or Aristotle. However, if you are looking for "traces" in Plato and Aristotle of a concept that somehow anticipates this god, or if you want to know what is their stand as regards what we are used to call "religion", this is another matter.

Then you want to know what concept of "god" you are looking for. Is it the concept of a single "god", that is, of a monotheistic religion? Is it the concept of "god the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen"? Is it the concept of the "Logos that was in the beginning, the Logos that was in God, the Logos that was God"? Or is it yet something else?

If you are looking for Plato's "religion", I think you should mostly look at book X of the Laws, and at the Timæus (as a whole, I would add). But this is only part of the answer. I think Plato knew perfectly well that on such matters, it is impossible to give complete answers with human words. Thus, he tried to approach the question from different angles and give partial complementary (and not contradictory) answers, both negative (what gods are not, what we should not believe) and positive (what we may safely believe about gods and the divine, and questions of "origins" and "ends").

In that respect, the answers he gives in the Timæus have to be "qualified" by the purpose of this dialogue: it purports to show man how he should look at the kosmos, that is "theorize" it (from theorein, which means in Greek "contemplate"), to find in it traces of an organizing "intelligence" and use it as a model for our organizing work as builders of lawfull cities as "just" men endowed with logos that is, a divine parcel in our own souls. And you must keep in mind that Plato himself repeats times and again that he does not states definite truths but tells only "likely myths".

So the task for Augustine and Aquinas was how to use these philosophies and somehow make them compatible with a personal God who interacts with his children and hears and answers prayers.

They were phenomenally brilliant and did the best they could, but the two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other. If God is transcendent, "he" is first, not a "he", such a being would be an abstract principle of Goodness or whatever you want to call it and certainly no more concerned with the affairs of silly little mankind than we would be with a termite colony in the attic.

Incidentally, I wonder how Christ's body, since he is corporeal, "limits" him- or was he not resurrected?

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't asking if you beat your wife, or trying to trick you into admitting that you do.

God most certainly has attributes, Mormons claiming one attribute is corporality.

No, he IS "corporeal"

My point is that attributes are not something that one "has" - they are abstract principles applied as descriptions to others. If one thinks someone is smart, cheap generous, a jerk or a nice guy, these are "attributions" or descriptions or judgements about them, not some abstract entity that is attached in a bundle to the person.

The distinction may seem minor, but it is not because "having an attribute" implies that it is somehow a real "thing" when all it is is an adjective or description.

First we say "God is everywhere" by virtue of his "omnipresence" as if omnipresence is a real thing- it is not. It is a virtus dormitiva - which explains nothing.

[saemo]

No, he IS "corporeal"

My point is that attributes are not something that one "has" - they are abstract principles applied as descriptions to others. If one thinks someone is smart, cheap generous, a jerk or a nice guy, these are "attributions" or descriptions or judgements about them, not some abstract entity that is attached in a bundle to the person.

The distinction may seem minor, but it is not because "having an attribute" implies that it is somehow a real "thing" when all it is is an adjective or description.

First we say "God is everywhere" by virtue of his "omnipresence" as if omnipresence is a real thing- it is not. It is a virtus dormitiva - which explains nothing.

Thanks for your thoughts and time put into replies, I just think you are making the Christian teaching of God more complicated than it is.

It is really very simple, God is the creator of all things, and as such is present to all of creation, and therefore, transcends all of creation. If God is not present to all of creation, and does not transcend all of creation, then I don't know who or what is the creator. You may as well say it is you or Bob or Sally. I see no difference.

God's transcendence doesn't remove Him from a relationship to His creation. I don't know why you would think it does.

Edited March 15, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

God's transcendence doesn't remove Him from a relationship to His creation. I don't know why you would think it does.

That is the term as it is commonly understood philosophically. It takes mental gymnastics to make it work with a God who interacts with humans

Original definition

See also: Transcendence (religion)

The first meaning, as part of the concept pair transcendence/immanence, is used primarily with reference to God's relation to the world and is particularly important in theology. Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond the world, as contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world. This meaning originates both in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-material self-consciousness that is outside of the world. Philosophies of immanence such as stoicism, Spinoza, Deleuze or pantheism maintain that God is manifested in and fully present in the world and the things in the world.

http://en.wikipedia....28philosophy%29

In religion transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of (and removed from) the physical universe. This is contrasted with immanence where God is fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways.

http://en.wikipedia...._%28religion%29

tran·scen·dent (trn-sndnt)

adj.

1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.

2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).

3. Philosophy

a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.

b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendence

4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Reading through the posts here by LDS, the distinction I see is a lack of transcendence. The Mormon idea of God doesn't have the quality of transcendence, which is to me, very secular.

There is no more of a lack of transcendence in LDS theology than there is in the biblical depiction of the resurrected Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Since "transcendence" is yet another interpretive term overlaid onto scripture without ever actually appearing within it, I don't see why the lack of it in Mormonism is a problem (or, for that matter, why it is something for a religion to aspire to). Since it has traditionally been used to describe a view of God as "climbing beyond" the "limits" of the natural, physical world, the staunch materialism of Mormonism is in fact a direct refutation of transcendentalism -- something I very much appreciate about the religion, actually.

As I've written on this board before, I think the metaphorical use of the word is fine, but since it's directly related to the panentheism of the 19th-century Transcendentalist school of literature (Thoreau, Emerson, etc), which was itself influenced by Kantian metaphysics and eventually back through the years to Plotinus' Neoplatonism, there is a danger in taking it so seriously we lose track of the physical nature of deity, effectively consigning Him to nonexistence. Indeed, in my view "transcendence" is a philosophically incomprehensible goal to strive for, since if an agent (God) exists, it is definitionally impossible for Him/Her/It to "transcend" His/Her/Its own existence. The search for "transcendence" turns very quickly into the infinite regress of apophatic negative theology which defines God only by what He isn't.

On the other hand, the Mormon view of a God who exists in the physically-real universe, albeit in a material Heavenly world "above" our own dovetails rather nicely with scripture:

"He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." -- John 3:31

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- John 8:23

Edited March 15, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Zakuska]

On the other hand, the Mormon view of a God who exists in the physically-real universe, albeit in a material Heavenly world "above" our own dovetails rather nicely with scripture:

"He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." -- John 3:31

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." -- John 8:23

Amen to that!

People who beleive in transedence have to relegate many scriptures to the scrap heep of metaphor and... wait for it... the Innerrant Bible not meaning what it actually says.

Genesis 11:7

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Psalm 115

1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy aname give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.

2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

4 Their aidols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.

Acts 1

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven

Acts 7:55

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

John 3:13

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Ef 4

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

The heaven that is described in the scriptures is a physical place. Where Physical ressurected bodies can actuall GO.

The heaven described by modern trascendentalist Evangelicalism is non existance. Ablivian. A placed that can't be heard seen or touched.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

I think we want to use "transcendent" to describe God because we want to raise him as high as we can above us- but really that is not what that word does. He can be infinitely above us in every conceivable power, in all knowledge and in every way we think God should be above our paltry abilities without technically being "transcendent". It doesn't lower him in any way to be "not transcendent" but really as a philosophical term "transcendent" doesn't have anything to do with powers and abilities- it has to do with whether or not he is part of our universe, as it were. A worm could be "transcendent" if it were a super worm in another universe - having nothing to do with ours.

The real question is, can we interact with God or not. If we can, he must be "immanent" in a Greek philosophical sense. Platonic forms are transcendent and our world is not "real" according to Plato. If you remember the "allegory of the cave" for Plato this world is a world of shadow and illusion- what is real is the transcendent world of Forms. God is seen as an abstract "Greatest Good" which has nothing to do with our world, and certainly not with interaction with mortals like us- we are truly "dust in the wind", or really more like shadows of that dust in the wind, in that kind of view.

Creedal Christianity tried to unify the two concepts- a transcendent God with a personal father that was necessary to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures- the result doesn't make much sense in contemporary eyes. This is where the whole doctrine of "substance" or "essence" or "being" comes in- those abstract terms and way of thinking really are straight out of Platonic Forms. So is the idea of the Nature of God- what IS that really but an abstraction? It isn't "real" to our modern Western scientific eyes. But a God with a tangible body who is in principle scientifically observable, who obeys natural laws that he has defined for himself- who is material, who is in our universe (if he wants to be) and yet infinitely powerful and knowledgable in every way we can conceive- such a being fits perfectly with the Hebrew scriptures, and in my opinion, with our modern Western scientific way of seeing.

In short, such a God is the only kind of God which seems to resolve all those old conflicts the Creedal view raised.

And immanence implies change. We have no problem with that either since we believe in eternal progression. You can even take the McConkie view that God does not change in knowledge if you want to - the point is that he DOES progress as his children add kingdoms to his. What is important is that with immanence, progression is possible- with transcendence it is not.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[georged]

Their god is strange to me, and the concept of the so called "Trinity" is even stranger; a God who would pray to Himself and who would land on Himself at His own baptism stating that He was well pleased with Himself, and part of Him would know when He would return again, but the other part would not?! "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine."!

[altersteve]

Their god is strange to me, and the concept of the so called "Trinity" is even stranger; a God who would pray to Himself and who would land on Himself at His own baptism stating that He was well pleased with Himself, and part of Him would know when He would return again, but the other part would not?! "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine."!

This is a misunderstanding that many Mormons have. The Trinity does not teach any of these things.

[georged]

The concept of the Trinity most certainly does by definition, as expressed in the Athanasian creed, teach that all the Godhead are in essence the same person, a vague 3 in one mixture. You may deny this all you like, but I have read and studied this creed!

[altersteve]

As have I, and it does not teach that they are "the same person." It says they are "one in substance." What that means is indeed very vague and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but believers in the Trinity do not believe that the Father is the "same person" as the Son and vice-versa, or that God was praying to Himself, etc. They affirm, in fact, that the members of the Godhead are three separate persons, but are united "in substance" as one being. Though this, of course, is completely meaningless and unbiblical.

Edited March 17, 2012 by altersteve