Which Trinity ?

[Anakin7]

In connection to the other thread I started on Jesus not being eternal I was criticized for, on that same day a few minutes later [ After the 1st experience] a truck stopped in front of me where I was working with the logo "Trinity Parts". I called out to the man driving the truck to ask him which trinity he believed in, he rolled down his window and said there was "only one". I replied there are multiple forms/models of the trinity, the light turned green and he said just before he drove away that " It's Not That Complicated !". I guess he has not read Augustine or any other of the church Fathers who found it complicated. Any Thoughts ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin 7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Darren10]

Well, I guess Darth Vader's and anakin are two persons yet the same being.

[Anakin7]

But remember that "Being" = "Nature" in True Christian Doctrine/Teaching/Talk. Anakin/Darth Vader both had the same man nature but there was a change, just like satan who was a son of God/angel became lucifer/satan.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[KevinG]

My favorite example of three personages as one...

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rpdxSMgtUc

as a musician I never had trouble with the LDS concept of the Godhood.

I now return you to your regular debate.

Edited September 14, 2012 by KevinG

[Ahab]

In connection to the other thread I started on Jesus not being eternal I was criticized for, on that same day a few minutes later [ After the 1st experience] a truck stopped in front of me where I was working with the logo "Trinity Parts". I called out to the man driving the truck to ask him which trinity he believed in, he rolled down his window and said there was "only one". I replied there are multiple forms/models of the trinity, the light turned green and he said just before he drove away that " It's Not That Complicated !". I guess he has not read Augustine or any other of the church Fathers who found it complicated. Any Thoughts ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin 7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I'd guess he probably meant there is only one way 3 persons can be one being, and that is the way I've always taught it.

The only way for one being to consist of more than one person is to use the word "being" to refer to a "kind" of being... like how the kind of being we refer to as the human being can be applied to every person who is one and then think of them all as one being.

In other words, the thing called a being must be something more than one person can be.

It is very simple. People confuse the issue by trying to think of something nothing can ever be.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ahab

[Rivers]

I sometimes find our Godhead doctrine just as confusing as the Trinity.

[thesometimesaint]

Think of it as the First Presidency of the Church. Different individuals united in one purpose, but even more so.

[Ahab]

I sometimes find our Godhead doctrine just as confusing as the Trinity.

Yep, or just as simple.

[swfarnsworth]

I sometimes find our Godhead doctrine just as confusing as the Trinity.

For non-LDS Christians (who can correct me here if I'm wrong), the trinity doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three and one simultaneously, and this idea is considered to be inherently outside of human comprehension, so no attempt is made to make it make perfect sense. Once you get over that, it's not complicated.

We, on the other hand, place the nature of the godhead within human comprehension, but then it gets complicated when you get into how the word "God" (with a capitol G) could refer to any of the three depending on context, or all three at once, or some other third possibility that will occur to me in a few hours.

During a presentation on Mormonism that I gave a few months ago, I began by talking about the nature of God (how the Father is not Jesus or the Spirit, the Lorenzo Snow couplet*, etc.). I got into the Atonement after that, which I explained by quoting the D&C:

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore.

To avoid wasting precious time trying to explain why Jesus kept calling Himself "God", I just skipped each instance of that word.

*I've had enough of people accusing me of trying to keep that doctrine a secret from the public, so I was sure to make it my first point after introducing myself and the topic.

[Ahab]

For non-LDS Christians (who can correct me here if I'm wrong), the trinity doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three and one simultaneously, and this idea is considered to be inherently outside of human comprehension, so no attempt is made to make it make perfect sense. Once you get over that, it's not complicated.

We, on the other hand, place the nature of the godhead within human comprehension, but then it gets complicated when you get into how the word "God" (with a capitol G) could refer to any of the three depending on context, or all three at once, or some other third possibility that will occur to me in a few hours.

In other words, we (LDS) comprehend how the three are one simultaneiously, but non-LDS Christians believe that is beyond human comprehension and therefore refuse to believe we comprehend it.

Maybe that's why they don't pay much attention to us even though we basically agree on this issue.

During a presentation on Mormonism that I gave a few months ago, I began by talking about the nature of God (how the Father is not Jesus or the Spirit, the Lorenzo Snow couplet*, etc.). I got into the Atonement after that, which I explained by quoting the D&C:

To avoid wasting precious time trying to explain why Jesus kept calling Himself "God", I just skipped each instance of that word.

Were you giving that presentation to non-LDS Christians? If not you could have left that part in and it would't have been anything new to us (LDS).

*I've had enough of people accusing me of trying to keep that doctrine a secret from the public, so I was sure to make it my first point after introducing myself and the topic.

I understand how it can help to give people only a little at a time but I like throwing more truth out there, eventually, while I hope it will stick.

[BCSpace]

Think of it as the First Presidency of the Church. Different individuals united in one purpose, but even more so.

Actually, the trinity is more like a married couple and a marriage license. The couple are the Persons (there are not two but three in the trinity obviously) and the license is God. Both notions of license and God in the trinity communicate an abstraction which is what the trinity is; an abstraction. On might be tempted to bridge the gap between trinitarians and LDS by replacing the license with "Priesthood" but it still doesn't work as in the Biblical LDS Godhead their are Three separate and distinct Gods, each a separate and distinct Person and Being and Two are subordinate to the One, the Father.

Edited September 14, 2012 by BCSpace

[Ahab]

Actually, the trinity is more like a married couple and a marriage license. The couple are the Persons (there are not two but three in the trinity obviously) and the license is God. Both notions of license and God in the trinity communicate an abstraction which is what the trinity is; an abstraction. On might be tempted to bridge the gap between trinitarians and LDS by replacing the license with "Priesthood" but it still doesn't work as in the Biblical LDS Godhead their are Three separate and distinct Gods, each a separate and distinct Person and Being and Two are subordinate to the One, the Father.

... or rather, 3 separate and distinct persons who are God. They're all God, with God referring to a kind of a being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

A more simple description of the Godhead is that there are 3 persons who are God who are in compete unity with each other.

Or to be even more simple, 3 in unity, with each of the 3 being a person who is God.

It was our idea first before the Catholic church messed it up.

[swfarnsworth]

In other words, we (LDS) comprehend how the three are one simultaneiously, but non-LDS Christians believe that is beyond human comprehension and therefore refuse to believe we comprehend it.

Maybe that's why they don't pay much attention to us even though we basically agree on this issue.

Why does remain beyond my comprehension is why it matters at all, unless they're trying to find an excuse to label us as polytheists, since that word has a negative connotation now. (I think Monolatry is a better fit for what we believe.)

Were you giving that presentation to non-LDS Christians? If not you could have left that part in and it would't have been anything new to us (LDS).

Most were non-LDS Christians, but there was also a Buddhist (to whom I had given a BoM to help satisfy her scholarly interest), a Muslim, and a fair number of agnostics.

[teddyaware]

I wish Latter Day Saints and traditional Christians would come to understand that there is no way we can possibly have a satisfactory dialogue on our understandings of the Trinity. It is impossible, and if such a dialogue is attempted you'll find you'll just end up going around and around, getting nowhere in the end. Here's why:

The Trinity is an undefinable mystery to traditional Christians. For them, just exactly how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God is impossible for them to say, and they readily admitt they can't explain it. They are not in agreement with the Modalists or Sabellianists who believe God is one person with three manifestations. Yet they say that although there are three seperate personages, somehow they are one God of one common 'substance.'

They're quick to confess they can't explain the incomprehensible way in which the Trinity are three persons yet one. Yet they must believe God himself thoroughly understands the dynamics of the Trinity; and they also probably bel;ieve they'ii undersatnd it on day too, when, in heaven, God finally explains it to them.

Here's the rub: On the face of it we believe exactlly the same as they do about the Trinity. Don't we believe in three seperate personages who are one God? The Book of Mormon reiterates this fact repeatedly. Yet we cannot find agreement with our traditional Christian friends. Why? Because although they seem to believe the same basic three seperate personage Trinitarian Godhead as we do, they then stipulate they don't understand how the three seperate personages are one God.

Bottom line? If traditional Christians can't define their own Trinitarian terms, how can it be expected that the Latter Day Saints will be able to have a meaningful dialogue with them on the subject? Until the day comes that the Lord ends their ignorance by demystifying and thoroghly explaining the workings of Trinity to them, how can it be expected that they can speak intelligently on the subject? There's just no use getting into it with them until they can define their own terms. We've defined ours, so let's wait patiently till the day they've defined theirs

[Ahab]

I wish Latter Day Saints and traditional Christians would come to understand that there is no way we can possibly have a satisfactory dialogue on our understandings of the Trinity. It is impossible, and if such a dialogue is attempted you'll find you'll just end up going around and around, getting nowhere in the end.

No, quite to the contrary, discussions about this issue can yield amazing results.

Here's why:

The Trinity is an undefinable mystery to traditional Christians. For them, just exactly how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God is impossible for them to say, and they readily admitt they can't explain it. They are not in agreement with the Modalists or Sabellianists who believe God is one person with three manifestations. Yet they say that although there are three seperate personages, somehow they are one God of one common 'substance.'

We understand what to them is a mystery, though, and we can also explain it while using some common sense, so when one of them will actually pay attention to us, and ask God if what we're saying is true, they'll actually come to the point where they will see they are in agreement with us.

The thing is, once they do all that they're not far from agreeing with us on other main issues, so they're soon to become one of us and no longer just a "traditional" Christian. Just ask around and you'll see that some of us were once traditional Christians.

They're quick to confess they can't explain the incomprehensible way in which the Trinity are three persons yet one. Yet they must believe God himself thoroughly understands the dynamics of the Trinity; and they also probably bel;ieve they'ii undersatnd it on day too, when, in heaven, God finally explains it to them.

They don't have to wait until they get to heaven, though. All they need to do is listen to us and then ask God if what we tell them is true. And yes, I know, some of them can be stubborn, but we've actually had many of them choose to join us while knowing our doctrine is true.

Here's the rub: On the face of it we believe exactlly the same as they do about the Trinity. Don't we believe in three seperate personages who are one God? The Book of Mormon reiterates this fact repeatedly. Yet we cannot find agreement with our traditional Christian friends. Why?

Because once we do they are no longer "traditional" Christians.

Because although they seem to believe the same basic three seperate personage Trinitarian Godhead as we do, they then stipulate they don't understand how the three seperate personages are one God

And then eventually, someday, finally, some of them do understand.

Bottom line? If traditional Christians can't define their own Trinitarian terms, how can it be expected that the Latter Day Saints will be able to have a meaningful dialogue with them on the subject?

Easy peasy. All we have to do is teach them what they do not understand.

Until the day comes that the Lord ends their ignorance by demystifying and thoroghly explaining the workings of Trinity to them, how can it be expected that they can speak intelligently on the subject?

The Lord has already ended a lot of their ignorance. It's just that there are still some others who are still "traditional" Christians.

There's just no use getting into it with them until they can define their own terms. We've defined ours, so let's wait patiently till the day they've defined theirs.

Okay. Just realize that each one of them doesn't need to wait for all of them to agree with us. We can catch them one at a time, just like we've already caught some.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ahab

[shalamabobbi]

We can catch them one at a time, just like we've already caught some.

It's the invasion of the body snatchers.. don't fall asleep!

Edited September 14, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Ahab]

It's the invasion of the body snatchers.. don't fall asleep!

I like to call it 'Fishing For Men (including Women)', the restored sequel.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ahab

[Calm]

In other words, we (LDS) comprehend how the three are one simultaneiously, but non-LDS Christians believe that is beyond human comprehension and therefore refuse to believe we comprehend it.

Maybe that's why they don't pay much attention to us even though we basically agree on this issue.

Or they just don't agree with our interpretation.

[teddyaware]

No, quite to the contrary, discussions about this issue can yield amazing results.

Here's why:

We understand what to them is a mystery, though, and we can also explain it while using some common sense, so when one of them will actually pay attention to us, and ask God if what we're saying is true, they'll actually come to the point where they will see they are in agreement with us.

The thing is, once they do all that they're not far from agreeing with us on other main issues, so they're soon to become one of us and no longer just a "traditional" Christian. Just ask around and you'll see that some of us were once traditional Christians.

They don't have to wait until they get to heaven, though. All they need to do is listen to us and then ask God if what we tell them is true. And yes, I know, some of them can be stubborn, but we've actually had many of them choose to join us while knowing our doctrine is true

Excellent job, Ahab! We're in complete agreement! I was just rhetorically referring to a specific type of "traditional Christian:" One who'll remain such at all costs, even if the Lord himself told them to go do otherwise... "Can't let those wacky 'Mormons' get in the last 'lick,' you know? It just wouldn't be right!"

[BCSpace]

I wish Latter Day Saints and traditional Christians would come to understand that there is no way we can possibly have a satisfactory dialogue on our understandings of the Trinity. It is impossible, and if such a dialogue is attempted you'll find you'll just end up going around and around, getting nowhere in the end.

I agree. It is disengenuous for LDS to say we believe in the trinity or a trinity. I know some apostles have done so and I strongly disagree with such usage in most cases.

[MiserereNobis]

I agree. It is disengenuous for LDS to say we believe in the trinity or a trinity. I know some apostles have done so and I strongly disagree with such usage in most cases.

I agree here. The LDS concept of the godhead and the Catholic/Christian concept of the Holy Trinity are irreconciliable. There are may be similarities here and there, but I think it would be best if the LDS stuck to their own terminology. That, at least, wouldn't muddle the conversation with each side using the same words but with different meanings.

The difference between three person-beings acting in unison and three person having the same being are two huge to reconcile.

The Trinity is NOT like the First Presidency, because the First Presidency is three person-beings acting in unison. They are three person and also three separate beings. The Trinity is three Persons, but the same Being.

Mormons often decry criticisms of their doctrines based on a lack of understanding of those criticizing. I have seen a few examples here (and heard many in person) of Mormons criticizing the doctrine of the Trinity based on a lack of understanding that doctrine. While it is true that ultimately the Trinity is a mystery, there are ways for us to comprehend it to a certain extent. Remember, the LDS godhead also contains mystery, too.

There is nothing wrong with mystery -- it is an admission of humility that there are some things that right now with a little human minds we simply cannot understand.

[altersteve]

The Trinity is three Persons, but the same Being.

And what does that mean exactly? As far as I can tell, it doesn't really mean anything. I mean, I understand the philosophy behind it and what the words themselves mean—but doesn't it simply say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are, collectively, one God? That's exactly what the Latter-day Saints believe. I guess I just don't understand why meaningless terms like "one in substance" need to be used, especially since that's not how God Himself defines it. The LDS explanation of how the oneness of God works is a lot more sensible to me. I think when it comes right down to it, what Latter-day Saints and trinitarians are saying aren't really that different at all. We just use completely different words that, to the other side, mean something a lot different than what is intended.

Edited September 15, 2012 by altersteve

[Tacenda]

And what does that mean exactly? As far as I can tell, it doesn't really mean anything. I mean, I understand the philosophy behind it and what the words themselves mean—but doesn't it simply say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are, collectively, one God? That's exactly what the Latter-day Saints believe. I guess I just don't understand why meaningless terms like "one in substance" need to be used, especially since that's not how God Himself defines it. The LDS explanation of how the oneness of God works is a lot more sensible to me. I think when it comes right down to it, what Latter-day Saints and trinitarians are saying aren't really that different at all. We just use completely different words that, to the other side, mean something a lot different than what is intended.

I'm no expert but I think Catholics might believe God is spirit like the bible says. Unlike we think, God is flesh & bone. I believe also they may think like the EV's, that Jesus (God) was able to become physical on earth and return with his physical body. Have I got that right or not, PopeSt.PiusX? So yeah now I just realised that I guess that would make God have a physical body since they are three in one? Now I've really gone off my rocker in confusion.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[altersteve]

I'm no expert but I think Catholics might believe God is spirit like the bible says. Unlike we think, God is flesh & bone. I believe also they may think like the EV's, that Jesus (God) was able to become physical on earth and return with his physical body. Have I got that right or not, PopeSt.PiusX? So yeah now I just realised that I guess that would make God have a physical body since they are three in one? Now I've really gone off my rocker in confusion.

I don't see how the Father having a body of flesh and bones affects how He can be one with His Son and the Holy Ghost. Those are two different issues.

Also, you seem to imply that we don't believe what the Bible says about the nature of God (being a Spirit "like the bible says"). But the interpretation of John 4:24 that God does not have a physical body is based on a misunderstanding.

[Tacenda]

I don't see how the Father having a body of flesh and bones affects how He can be one with His Son and the Holy Ghost. Those are two different issues.

Also, you seem to imply that we don't believe what the Bible says about the nature of God (being a Spirit "like the bible says"). But the interpretation of John 4:24 that God does not have a physical body is based on a misunderstanding.

Thank you for that clarification.