Which Trinity ?

[teddyaware]

I believe traditional Christianity's Trinity, described as three seperate personages yet one God by means of a mysterious, shared common "substance" (homoousious) or shared essense, can be easily demystified by LDS theology. In the Lectures on Faith, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

"And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father; which Mind is the Holy Spirit..."

The foregoing asserts the profound oneness of the Father and the Son consists of a total unity of mind or intelligence, and that the shared common "substance," or essence, that produces this unity is the Holy Spirit (i.e. the living and uncreated Divine Mind or Spirit of Truth). So could it be, then, that the mysterious, undefined "substance" of the creeds of traditional Christianity's Trinity is simply the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit that can make the sons and daughters of God on earth, who gladly and faithfully receive it, one with the Father as well. As Christ revealed in his great Intersessory Prayer, as recorded in John 17:

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

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

This substance of "glory" the Savior transmitted in fulness to his disciples on the Day of Pentacost is, as revealed by the Lord in the previous Chapter of John, the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit (Mind) of Uncreated, Divine Intelligence.

Edited September 18, 2012 by teddyaware

[Vance]

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.

True.

I can't find one verse in Mormon scripture that claims that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods.

True. But neither can you find one verse that denies this possibility.

So if you are going to say the terms consubstantial and Trinity aren't scriptural, . . .

They aren't.

. . . 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.

Teaches what exactly?

It is very clear that Jesus is a separate being/person/personage/individual from the Father. Perhaps the problem is in thinking that the term "God" must refer only to a being/person/personage/individual.

Do you think it inaccurate to describe three separate and distinct DIVINE beings/persons/personages/individuals as three Gods?

Some might incorrectly infer it, but it is not scriptural.

So?

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.

So? It describes multiple divine beings/persons/personages/individuals. The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are also multiple divine beings/persons/personages/individuals.

[zerinus]

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.

We don't dispute that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are "one". The question is how they are one. We think we have a better idea of how they are one.

[Bart Burk]

We don't dispute that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are "one". The question is how they are one. We think we have a better idea of how they are one.

And I would answer that you don't know any more how they are one than traditional Christians know how they are one. I think if we develop the idea that Christ is consubstantial with humans while at the same time consubstantial with the Godhead we can begin to grasp it. There is really no difference between what I believe as a Catholic Christian than what LDS teach. Catholics believe Christ is a resurrected being with a body, but that doesn't keep him from consubtantiality with the Father. And if the Father has a body as LDS teach it still doesn't keep Christ from consubstantiality with the Father even in Catholic terms. We are not talking about any real difference when it comes to the oneness of God. The difference is in how we understand the Father, not how we understand the Son. And even that difference depends upon an LDS understanding which is more speculation than anything else.

[Bart Burk]

True.

True. But neither can you find one verse that denies this possibility.

They aren't.

Teaches what exactly?

It is very clear that Jesus is a separate being/person/personage/individual from the Father. Perhaps the problem is in thinking that the term "God" must refer only to a being/person/personage/individual.

Do you think it inaccurate to describe three separate and distinct DIVINE beings/persons/personages/individuals as three Gods?

So?

So? It describes multiple divine beings/persons/personages/individuals. The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are also multiple divine beings/persons/personages/individuals.

Mormon scripture continually refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God. Why would it do that if we are supposed to call them three Gods?

[Bart Burk]

I believe traditional Christianity's Trinity described as three seperate personages, yet one God by means of a mysterious, shared common "substance" (homoousious) or shared essense, can be easily demystified by LDS theology. In the Lectures on Faith, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

"And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father; which Mind is the Holy Spirit..."

The foregoing asserts the profound oneness of the Father and the Son consists of a total unity of mind or intelligence, and that the shared common "substance," or essence, that produces this unity is the Holy Spirit (i.e. the living and uncreated Divine Mind or Spirit of Truth). So could it be, then, that the mysterious, undefined "substance" of the creeds of traditional Christianity's Trinity is simply the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit that can make the sons and daughters of God on earth, who gladly and faithfully receive it, one with the Father as well. As Christ revealed in his great Intersessory Prayer, as recorded in John 17:

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

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

This substance of "glory" the Savior transmitted in fulness to his disciples on the Day of Pentacost is, as revealed by the Lord in the previous Chapter of John, the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit (Mind) of Uncreated, Divine Intelligence.

Catholics believe God is pure mind. So I don't see anything wrong with your analysis.

[teddyaware]

Catholics believe God is pure mind. So I don't see anything wrong with your analysis.

Thanks, Bart Burk. The pure mind thing -- at least as insofar as the Catholics are concerned -- sounds like something that grew out of the ruminations of Plato and friends.

[zerinus]

And I would answer that you don't know any more how they are one than traditional Christians know how they are one. I think if we develop the idea that Christ is consubstantial with humans while at the same time consubstantial with the Godhead we can begin to grasp it. There is really no difference between what I believe as a Catholic Christian than what LDS teach. Catholics believe Christ is a resurrected being with a body, but that doesn't keep him from consubtantiality with the Father. And if the Father has a body as LDS teach it still doesn't keep Christ from consubstantiality with the Father even in Catholic terms. We are not talking about any real difference when it comes to the oneness of God. The difference is in how we understand the Father, not how we understand the Son. And even that difference depends upon an LDS understanding which is more speculation than anything else.

We claim we do know how they are one. You are confusing the issue by introducing a non scriptural term like "consubstantial". If you eliminate that, and stick to the scriptural terms, the concept becomes easier to discuss and understand.

[MiserereNobis]

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

Well, the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, so why are you attached to using it? I don't even think it appears in the LDS scriptures, does it?

[Bart Burk]

We claim we do know how they are one. You are confusing the issue by introducing a non scriptural term like "consubstantial". If you eliminate that, and stick to the scriptural terms, the concept becomes easier to discuss and understand.

I don't see how consubstantial as meaning Jesus is one with us as any different than you teach. And when Jesus tells his disciples to be one with each other like He is one with the Father, it seems to me the term consubstantial works very well since Jesus is consubstantial with us. That may not sound quite right, but the point is the term consubstantial is not as strange as the LDS try to make it sound. It expresses a truth about the Father's relationship with the Son as well as the Son's relationship with us. Again I think both sides are trying to make a difference where one doesn't exist.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bart Burk

[MiserereNobis]

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?

They are collectively one God and one Being.

That's exactly what the Latter-day Saints believe.

Not unless I am grossly mistaken as to what the LDS believe. My understanding is that there are three beings, not one being.

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 "one in substance" is key to the Trinity and to understanding how there are three Persons yet only one Being. They are of the same substance, and that substance is God, and that substance is different from all other substance that is. In the LDS view (correct me if I am mistaken), God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance, but that substance is the same substance as us humans AND the same substance as the rest of the universe, yes? Isn't the LDS belief monist materialism? There is one substance, and that substance is matter (spirit is not a different substance, it is just a variation on the same substance, it is matter refined). Do I have the LDS view right?

The LDS explanation of how the oneness of God works is a lot more sensible to me.

Ok, but let's both admit that whether or not something sensible to an individual (a subject judgement) doesn't necessarily correlate to whether or not it is objectively true. And as far as the nature of God goes, I suppose my own subject judgement tells me that it would be sensible for His nature to be ultimately very difficult to understand.

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.

Perhaps if I am misunderstanding the LDS position.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

I can see what you are saying and perhaps you are right However, it seems to me that many LDS, at least in my experience here and in person, decry the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as being a post-apostasy vain philosophy of man, found in creeds that God himself said were an abomination. Does the LDS view admit to the possibility that they've got some things wrong and could actually be Trinitarian as traditionally defined?

[Bart Burk]

They are collectively one God and one Being.

Not unless I am grossly mistaken as to what the LDS believe. My understanding is that there are three beings, not one being.

The "one in substance" is key to the Trinity and to understanding how there are three Persons yet only one Being. They are of the same substance, and that substance is God, and that substance is different from all other substance that is. In the LDS view (correct me if I am mistaken), God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance, but that substance is the same substance as us humans AND the same substance as the rest of the universe, yes? Isn't the LDS belief monist materialism? There is one substance, and that substance is matter (spirit is not a different substance, it is just a variation on the same substance, it is matter refined). Do I have the LDS view right?

Ok, but let's both admit that whether or not something sensible to an individual (a subject judgement) doesn't necessarily correlate to whether or not it is objectively true. And as far as the nature of God goes, I suppose my own subject judgement tells me that it would be sensible for His nature to be ultimately very difficult to understand.

Perhaps if I am misunderstanding the LDS position.

You really confuse the issue when you claim we Catholics believe the Godhead is one Being. That is not what the teaching is -- they are consubstantial, of the same substance, or of the same Being. It plays right into the LDS argument because it makes it sound like we believe in what Joseph Smith incorrectly labeled a "monster God' in his Sermon in the Grove (assuming we believe the transcription is accurate). We Catholics so often drift towards modalism when we try to explain the Trinity. The threeness is real and the oneness is real, but they aren't one Being. They are one in Being where Being is more of an adjective than a noun.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

I'm sorry, zerinus, but this is rather silly. I'm not copyrighting the word "Trinity." Trinity is a technical term in Catholic theology. Words have meaning and we should stick to the meanings of those words. That is not copyrighting or any such silly thing -- it is the basis of any intelligent discussion. If words can mean whatever I want them to mean then we won't get very far in conversation now, will we?

You believe that your understanding of the nature of God conforms more closely to the Bible and is more correct -- fine, but that doesn't mean that it matches the definition of the word "Trinity."

Why are you so attached to using a word that is not in the LDS tradition and whose definition, if studied, doesn't mean what the LDS church has taught?

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Tertullian is generally given the honor of first using the terms Trinity, substance/being, and person to describe God. He was a Catholic theologian in the 3rd century. It is a technical Catholic term of theology and thus has a technical definition, to which we should adhere in order to communicate clearly.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Bingo.

[MiserereNobis]

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

Well, I can't help you there... I don't really know what EVs believe about the Trinity. Perhaps one will chime in and we can find out if it resembles Catholicism.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Hmmm, this is not quite the Catholic understanding. Yes, Jesus and God are consubstantial, of the same substance, and that substance is God, but that substance is different than the substance out of which us humans were made. Jesus had two nature/beings/substances united in one: he was 100% God and 100% human. This is the hypostatic union. It doesn't mean that the two are the same, it means that they were united. For example, as per Catholic dogma, when Jesus died, His physical body remained in the tomb while His spirit descended to hell/hades/the dead (pick your translation), but the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (His Divine Substance) remained in hypostatic union with both His body and His spirit. They were not/are not equal to each other, but they are in union, they subsist with each other.

The Trinitarian belief is that Jesus had a body, a soul, and a divinity. Do the LDS believe that He had these three parts, or just two: body and soul?

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.

Maybe, but it seems to me that the LDS are saying something very different than what Catholicism teaches. zerinus, despite his attachment to the word trinity, seems to think the same thing, but calling our beliefs "post-apostate."

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Well, if this is the case, then you LDS shouldn't be clamoring over yourselves to say you believe in the Trinity, right?

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

That means parts of us are like Him, namely our reason, intellect, and will, our spiritual faculties. By the way, even though you reversed yourself, the fact that you said God looks like man shows your view of God is different than traditional Christianity.

[Bart Burk]

Well, if this is the case, then you LDS shouldn't be clamoring over yourselves to say you believe in the Trinity, right?

That means parts of us are like Him, namely our reason, intellect, and will, our spiritual faculties. By the way, even though you reversed yourself, the fact that you said God looks like man shows your view of God is different than traditional Christianity.

Are you so sure you can limit God the Father that way? Have you ever seen God? You may be correct that the Father does not have a physical body, but we don't really know that from scripture. That's an inference you are making, but the opposite can be inferred as well.

[ChristKnight]

Hmmm, this is not quite the Catholic understanding. Yes, Jesus and God are consubstantial, of the same substance, and that substance is God, but that substance is different than the substance out of which us humans were made. Jesus had two nature/beings/substances united in one: he was 100% God and 100% human. This is the hypostatic union. It doesn't mean that the two are the same, it means that they were united. For example, as per Catholic dogma, when Jesus died, His physical body remained in the tomb while His spirit descended to hell/hades/the dead (pick your translation), but the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (His Divine Substance) remained in hypostatic union with both His body and His spirit. They were not/are not equal to each other, but they are in union, they subsist with each other.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of that. What he was saying is that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in His divine nature, and consubstantial with humans in His human nature.

[MiserereNobis]

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

It cannot be explained or understood fully, but the essentials can be understood and explained. And it is the essentials that appear to differ with the LDS view.

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

Well, I can't explain where Rostuk is in Russian, because I don't know, but I know the essential fact that it is in Russia, so if you are in Africa I know that you are not in Rostuk, even though I don't know exactly where Rostuk is.

I hope this analogy helps. We know some things about the Trinity -- they have been infallible and dogmatically declared. From all appearances, unless we mince words behind any rational meaning, the LDS view of the Godhead doesn't correspond with what we do know. Our God is in Russia, yours is in Africa

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

Why do you see mystery as such a negative thing? It is one of the beauties of the world. Without mystery there would be no curiousity and without curiousity there would be no drive to learn. Do you wish to live in a world without mystery?

And, as I keep repeating, something as immense as the Divine Nature of God would probably be a bit hard for us humans to understand, wouldn't you agree? Do you understand the intricacies of particle physics? Quantum waves? Do you think you could get a full understanding by reading a couple of posts on a physicists' forum or blog? God is so much more than modern physics. His Being should be at least as difficult to comprehend.

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

Yes, I'm trying to point out that you have mysteries in your religion, too, to try to get you to see that mystery isn't the boogie man you've made it out to be.

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

You are a defensive fellow, eh?

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

Where something comes from doesn't mean it is or isn't true. Thinking so is called the Genetic Fallacy.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Yes, but I'll add that God's Divinity is of a different substance than Jesus' humanity. The two substances are in union, but not equal to each other.

[MiserereNobis]

The Bible does not call them "Trinity," but it does call them "Three," which means the same thing.

No, Trinity is a technical term of Catholic theology which does not mean the same as three. You are conflating the two to suit your purposes. If you look up in a dictionary the words, it doesn't say under "three": see trinity. There is a difference. You may believe that the Trinity is not Biblical, is not right, is not whatever, but that doesn't mean the word now loses its meaning. The word "unicorn" may not correspond to anything in reality, but it doesn't mean the word is meaningless.

Stop trying to change meanings of techinical terms.

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.

First of all, the scripture simple says "one," which means that we have to explain what "one" means. Mormons say it means one in purpose, will, goals, etc. Catholics say it means one in substance and being. Now, one may be wrong, or both wrong, but my point is that we are both adding an interpretation to the end of that verse and we both have our reasons to do so.

Finally, the word Trinity is not mentioned in that verse, so I'm not sure why you keep using it... tell me again, why are you so attached to giving a different definition to the word that my religion created, defined, and has used for 1700+ years? Why not just stick with your own word, Godhead?

Edited September 18, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

The next question is if "consubstantial" means the same thing when applied to the Divine as it does to humanity. Are you saying the same relationship exists between the Father and the Son in their consubstantiality as exists between Christ and other humans in their consubstantiality.

Do we mean the identical thing when we say "human" is to "humanity" as "the Son" is to "Trinity".

In the past, I've been told no. That Trinity is not just a collective noun about a group of persons made the same way out of the same elements, that the oneness of substance is something much, much more and not just a social unity such as LDS teach of being of one mind and one family.