Which Trinity ?

[Carborendum]

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.

I agree there is nothing wrong with a mystery. I also think it's great to have the humility to admit there are some things beyond our understanding--especially regarding the nature of God and Eternity.

But it is this very principle that pointing out the differences is guilty of violating. When you give your definition of the Trinity, then compare it to the LDS idea of Godhead, it is a worthy exercise. But then we go a step further and say, "of course these are irreconcilable". How so? If it is indeed a mystery, and (as you state) the LDS theology also has mystery to it, isn't it possible or even probable that the remaining mysteries contain what is required for reconciliation?

To say "no" to this would then violate the principle of humility that you previously espoused. To say "no" would be to force an interpretation that you already admit you don't understand.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Carborendum

[zerinus]

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

What do you find confusing about it?

[zerinus]

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 entirely disagree. I most certainly believe in the Trinity; but the Trinity of the Bible, not the Trinity of post-apostate Christianity.

[zerinus]

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.

The mistake you are making is that you are trying to "copyright" the word Trinity (like the word Christian) exclusively for yourselves (whoever that is), and excluding Mormonism from it. Well, I am not aware that either word was ever copyrighted. I believe that my definition of the Trinity is the correct one that conforms most closely to the Bible, and therefore that is how I am going to define and use it. You have no right to define the word Trinity for everyone else who wants to use it, any more than you have the right to do that for the word Christian.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

Was "Trinity" a word specifically created for a particular concept or group by someone for use by individuals within a particular belief system? If so, I would look on it more like "Mormon" than Christian.

[Carborendum]

I entirely disagree. I most certainly believe in the Trinity; but the Trinity of the Bible, not the Trinity of post-apostate Christianity.

(note: I was trying to include both BCSpace's quote as well as Zerinus' quote. It didn't work.)

Well, I'd certainly say we don't believe in modalism (except from a very limited perspective). But when the definition of Trinity (even by Catholics or Ev's or others) is so nebulous, how can we be certain we don't?

As some have described it to me, it certainly sounds like the Godhead. But if you describe it back to them using LDS verbiage, they deny it. They try to re-explain it. It still sounds like the Godhead.

So, confusing? Apparently. Disengenuous? Until they get a clearer definition, not to me.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Carborendum

[Calm]

Did you try "Multiquote"?

I would say how they generally mean "substance" as it relates to the one "being" called God makes a significant difference.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

(note: I was trying to include both BCSpace's quote as well as Zerinus' quote. It didn't work.)

Well, I'd certainly say we don't believe in modalism (except from a very limited perspective). But when the definition of Trinity (even by Catholics or Ev's or others) is so nebulous, how can we be certain we don't?

As some have described it to me, it certainly sounds like the Godhead. But if you describe it back to them using LDS verbiage, they deny it. They try to re-explain it. It still sounds like the Godhead.

So, confusing? Apparently. Disengenuous? Until they get a clearer definition, not to me.

Sorry, but I found your post more confusing than anything else I have read in this thread so far!

[Carborendum]

Sorry, but I found your post more confusing than anything else I have read in this thread so far!

I can kinda see that. I'll try to clarify.

BCspace had said it was "disengenuous" to say we believe in the Trinity. You said you disagree. I also disagree with BCspace, but for slightly different reasons than what you gave.

1) Since my friend from childhood described the Trinity as what I now know to be modalism, I had to state for the record that I don't believe our doctrine is accuarately reflected under the modalism umbrella.

2) Since I can't get a clear definition of what the Trinity is, I can't really say that I disagree with it can I?

3) When some attempt a clear definition, all I hear is a description of the Godhead (per LDS Theology). But those who just gave me their definitions won't accept it as the same as the Godhead. So, this makes me wonder if they truly disagree with the principle itself, or if they just don't agree with Mormons.

So the entire discussion (along the lines of this thread) is confusing.

But I don't consider it disengenuous to say we also believe in the Trinity because there is no clear definition they've given that is much different than what I see as the LDS description of God/Godhead.

[zerinus]

I can kinda see that. I'll try to clarify.

BCspace had said it was "disengenuous" to say we believe in the Trinity. You said you disagree. I also disagree with BCspace, but for slightly different reasons than what you gave.

1) Since my friend from childhood described the Trinity as what I now know to be modalism, I had to state for the record that I don't believe our doctrine is accuarately reflected under the modalism umbrella.

You are confusing the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom with the Trinity of the Bible. When I say the Trinity, I mean the Trinity of the Bible.

2) Since I can't get a clear definition of what the Trinity is, I can't really say that I disagree with it can I?

If you are referring to the Trinity of post-Apostate Christianity, I agree; but that is not what I mean by the Trinity. When I say Trinity, I mean the Trinity of the Bible.

3) When some attempt a clear definition, all I hear is a description of the Godhead (per LDS Theology). But those who just gave me their definitions won't accept it as the same as the Godhead. So, this makes me wonder if they truly disagree with the principle itself, or if they just don't agree with Mormons.

That is because you appear to be eternally stuck in the post-Apostate definition of the Trinity, which is not what I mean when I use the word Trinity. By it I always mean the Trinity of the Bible, and nothing else.

So the entire discussion (along the lines of this thread) is confusing.

I am sure it would be, if you persist in looking at it from your perspective only. Try looking at it from my perspective for a change, and you may see the difference.

But I don't consider it disengenuous to say we also believe in the Trinity because there is no clear definition they've given that is much different than what I see as the LDS description of God/Godhead.

I see you are still stuck in the same time warp which prevents you from seeing things as I see it. When you start seeing it my way, we might be getting somewhere!

[Carborendum]

Zerinus,

Chill. Take a breath. I'm not your enemy.

I know what you said. And if we want to go with your definition, then I totally agree with you. But the question of the thread was "Which Trinity?"

I get that you're talking about when you say "The Trinity of the Bible". Since I agree with your idea, it doesn't make for much of a dialogue if we sit agreeing with each other.

Z: I believe A.

C: So do I.

conversation complete.

I was addressing BCspace's post while including your response to BC because I thought it a good one. That's why I added that note, did you spot it?

I believe it was really about a separate but still related issue. The source of conflict between EVs and LDS when speaking of the Trinity is really what the OP was addressing. To address this issue, we need to deal with what today's (as you say "post-apostate") version of what EVs believe.

When addressing that concept, my conclusion is: I can't say I agree or disagree with something I'm not getting a clear definition on. I ask them, not you, to give me a clear definition of their concept of the Trinity, so I can clearly answer yes or no to them.

I already know I agree with you. I'm looking for common ground with EVs on this topic.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Carborendum

[Bart Burk]

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

The argument regarding the Trinity is not really the problem traditional Christians have with the LDS. Traditional Christians readily admit that LDS see the three persons in the Godhead as one in some way which different LDS explain differently. What they have a problem with is that LDS insist on calling them three Gods or three Beings instead of three persons who are one Eternal God. If LDS would simply stop right there instead of insisting on going beyond their own scripture and calling them three Gods there would be no problem. Beyond that, LDS insist on claiming that God the Father had a Father himself. If LDS would quit calling the persons in the Godhead three Gods and quit claiming that the Father had a Father, there wouldn't be a big disagreement. Trinity only means three united persons so I don't see anything wrong with using the term.

[Bart Burk]

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.

My understanding is the Father and the Son are "one in Being", not the same Being. There is a big difference. The term used in the creed is consubstantial. Jesus is not only consubstantial with the Father. Jesus is also consubstantial with humanity. He is of the same Being as the Father, but also of the same Being as humanity. The difference between the LDS idea of the Godhead and the traditional understanding of the Godhead is only as different as people want to make it so they can argue about it.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Tacenda]

I had at one time believed and was taught, that there are three separate and distinct beings. One of those, the Holy Ghost, still without a body, but Jesus and God having a physical body.

And as I've researched into the Trinity and believe that it is not our belief because a Trinity is where there are three in one entity (spirit not physical). Each can move out of the the main entity and go elsewhere. Like the Savior...He left the one entity and moved down to the earth and inhabited a body. Where the other two stayed in heaven (except maybe the spirit of God, inhabiting our souls down on earth).

Therefore Jesus was able to converse with God from the earth. He wasn't talking to himself in the Garden, like so many believe. They were separate. But God is so unimaginably huge that it is not within the human mind to comprehend. I don't know how accurate this analogy of my own making is. But it is how I believe the Trinity is.

[thesometimesaint]

The trouble with the Trinity is that it is nowhere found in the Bible, nor are its prerequisites. It is a construct of 4th Century Christians to argue against the Jews charge that Christians are polytheistic.

God looks like man, or if you will, man looks like God. We are made in his likeness and image.

[Vance]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "being".

Mormons often decry criticisms of their doctrines based on a lack of understanding of those criticizing.

True, but not relevant.

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.

I have seen Trinitarians claim that if you can explain it, it isn't the Trinity. Do you go along with that assessment?

If so, please explain how you can be critical of a misrepresentation of something that you, yourself can't explain.

While it is true that ultimately the Trinity is a mystery, there are ways for us to comprehend it to a certain extent.

Ah, there it is. The old "mystery" thing.

Remember, the LDS godhead also contains mystery, too.

I see what you are trying to do with that statement.

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.

I find it especially interesting when it is used in the following fashion. "We don't know what ________________ means, BUT MORMONS ARE WRONG!!!!!"

This is the way I see it.

It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position

(The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, p140-141).

[Bart Burk]

The trouble with the Trinity is that it is nowhere found in the Bible, nor are its prerequisites. It is a construct of 4th Century Christians to argue against the Jews charge that Christians are polytheistic.

God looks like man, or if you will, man looks like God. We are made in his likeness and image.

It was an argument that was necessary because Christ clearly identifies himself as God, but also clearly identifies himself as separate from the Father. And since there is only one God the term Trinity was coined as a way to explain it in the best terminology man could comprehend. The use of the term consubstantial to refer to Christ's divinity makes it clear that Christ was always God. The fact that Christ is also considered consubstantial with man -- he is fully human -- should help us understand the term consubstantial better. Christ is one with God in his divinity and one with us in our humanity. That is all the creeds are trying to explain.

[ChristKnight]

It was an argument that was necessary because Christ clearly identifies himself as God, but also clearly identifies himself as separate from the Father. And since there is only one God the term Trinity was coined as a way to explain it in the best terminology man could comprehend. The use of the term consubstantial to refer to Christ's divinity makes it clear that Christ was always God. The fact that Christ is also considered consubstantial with man -- he is fully human -- should help us understand the term consubstantial better. Christ is one with God in his divinity and one with us in our humanity. That is all the creeds are trying to explain.

How would that be monotheistic, in your opinion?

[Vance]

How would that be monotheistic, in your opinion?

It wouldn't be. Trinitarianism is NOT monotheism.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Vance

[Bart Burk]

How would that be monotheistic, in your opinion?

That's always the question isn't it? It's monotheistic because traditional Christians say it is. That's why I think the argument between traditional Christians and the LDS about the Trinity is arguing about nothing. It does seem to me that both sides like to argue about the Trinity, when the real arguments are somewhere else. The real argument is whether or not there is a clear distinction between divinity and humanity -- traditional Christians say there is while LDS say ultimately there isn't. The Trinity is not really the issue. Perhaps the Trinitarians can scare their followers by saying, "LDS don't believe in the Trinity!" And LDS can talk to their folks and say, "Those traditional Christians are really stupid to believe that 1+1+1=1."

[zerinus]

The trouble with the Trinity is that it is nowhere found in the Bible, nor are its prerequisites. It is a construct of 4th Century Christians to argue against the Jews charge that Christians are polytheistic.

Of course the Trinity is in the Bible. What a dumb thing to say. But it is the Trinity of the Bible, not the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom. The word Trinity simply means "three," or "the three". Other possible equivalents might be Triune, Triad, Triumvirate etc. It simply means "The Three" Who are mentioned in the Bible. There are a number of passages in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned together (as in the baptismal formula for example) which suggests that they have a special kind of relationship together. The word Trinity evolved simply to refer to this "Trio" of supreme beings mentioned in the Bible. That is the meaning of the word Trinity in regard to the Bible. The Bible does not call them "Trinity," but it does call them "Three," which means the same thing. Here is a quote:

1 John 5:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That is the Trinity. It is the Trinity of the Bible. It says nothing about being of "one substance," or more than one substance, or anything. That is the Trinity which Mormons believe in; the pristine, uncorrupted Trinity of the Bible. Why Mormons (and non-Mormons) insist on equating the word Trinity with the corrupted version of it rather than the true, biblical version, I have not yet been able to understand.

Edited September 17, 2012 by zerinus

[ChristKnight]

That's always the question isn't it? It's monotheistic because traditional Christians say it is. That's why I think the argument between traditional Christians and the LDS about the Trinity is arguing about nothing. It does seem to me that both sides like to argue about the Trinity, when the real arguments are somewhere else. The real argument is whether or not there is a clear distinction between divinity and humanity -- traditional Christians say there is while LDS say ultimately there isn't. The Trinity is not really the issue. Perhaps the Trinitarians can scare their followers by saying, "LDS don't believe in the Trinity!" And LDS can talk to their folks and say, "Those traditional Christians are really stupid to believe that 1+1+1=1."

I completely agree. Especially when we understand what "consubstantial" is referring to in the traditional Trinity doctrine, and when it is stated that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and is also consubstantial with us (man), I really don't see how the traditional Trinity doctrine is any more monotheistic than the LDS Godhead doctrine, beyond "because we say it is". If there are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, how can that be monotheistic with just that point alone? I also see it frequently stated (mostly over on CAF) that the Jews and Muslims that say that the Trinity doctrine is polytheistic, not monotheistic, say so because they just don't understand it.

[Bart Burk]

I completely agree. Especially when we understand what "consubstantial" is referring to in the traditional Trinity doctrine, and when it is stated that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and is also consubstantial with us (man), I really don't see how the traditional Trinity doctrine is any more monotheistic than the LDS Godhead doctrine, beyond "because we say it is". If there are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, how can that be monotheistic with just that point alone? I also see it frequently stated (mostly over on CAF) that the Jews and Muslims that say that the Trinity doctrine is polytheistic, not monotheistic, say so because they just don't understand it.

As if we Catholics understood it ...

[Bart Burk]

I completely agree. Especially when we understand what "consubstantial" is referring to in the traditional Trinity doctrine, and when it is stated that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and is also consubstantial with us (man), I really don't see how the traditional Trinity doctrine is any more monotheistic than the LDS Godhead doctrine, beyond "because we say it is". If there are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, how can that be monotheistic with just that point alone? I also see it frequently stated (mostly over on CAF) that the Jews and Muslims that say that the Trinity doctrine is polytheistic, not monotheistic, say so because they just don't understand it.

Thinking this over it is monotheistic because the proclamation is made that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God. That's not any different than what the Book of Mormon proclaims. I had never really thought about the understanding that Christ is consubstantial with humanity until today. I think understanding that gives us a glimpse of how Christ can be consubstantial with the Father, but be a different person just as Christ is consubstantial with us even though we have different physical bodies. The oneness of God has nothing to do with any kind of physical oneness anymore than Christ's consubstantiality with us has to do with any kind of physical oneness between us and Christ. The argument ends when we don't make consubstantial mean more than it really means.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Bart Burk]

And just to beat the dead horse -- I can find plenty of verses in Mormon scripture where Father, Son and Holy Ghost are proclaimed to be One Eternal God. I can't find one verse in Mormon scripture that claims that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods. So if you are going to say the terms consubstantial and Trinity aren't scriptural, you're going have to come up with a scripture somewhere that says Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods to make me believe that Mormonism teaches that. Some might incorrectly infer it, but it is not scriptural. You won't even find it in chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham because the term Gods is never defined in a way that limits the term Gods to the Godhead.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bart Burk