Latter-Day Saint Misunderstanding Of The Trinity Of Historical Christianity

[3DOP]

For those unfamiliar with St. Thomas' method and perhaps viewing the Summa for the first time, be aware that he always presented the argument of the opposing views before presenting his own. These are not straw men. I would not want anyone to be confused. Even though they are well stated, and often with biblical or patristic authority to back them up, the "objections" are always the view that is refuted by St. Thomas eventually.

Edited March 7, 2013 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

Very interesting discussions. As the original poster on this thread, I will take a moment to simply reiterate my original point. And that point is that throughout the years I've observed many members of the LDS Church, in talks and lessons, present an inaccurate Modalistic caricature of the traditional Christian Trinity, incorrectly teaching as truth that non-LDS Christians -- in spite of abundant New Testament scriptures that prove the contrary -- do not believe there are three separate personages in the Godhead. Latter-day Saints would do well to realize traditional Christians reject Modalism (one God in three manifestations). There's enough theological and doctrinal divergency between the Latter-day Saints and the Catholics and Protestants without inventing new ones that don't exist. Understanding and respectful dialogue are facilitated through an accurate understanding and presentation of each other's respective beliefs.

Edited March 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[rameumptom]

Based on decades of experience, I have found that the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants also do not understand the Trinity, as explained by teddyaware.

Most tend to describe modalism, rather than the Trinity.

So, perhaps Mormons would understand the dogma better, if their traditional Christian friends understood it well enough to explain it to the LDS?

BTW, there are some traditional Christian sects that DO embrace Modalism....

Edited March 7, 2013 by rameumptom

[Ahab]

Although I guess it's "possible", I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus *still* does not know the hour of His coming.

It's because someone else will be the one to tell him to come, I think. He thinks the same way as our Father does, and agrees with him on every issue, but he doesn't know everything our Father knows unless or until our Father has told him.

It's kinda like how he remembers our sins no more, so to speak. It's not like he doesn't know what he doesn't remember. That would be like Alzheimers, or at least Sometimers, with some of his memories gone.

[Ahab]

Very interesting discussions. As the original poster on this thread, I will take a moment to simply reiterate my original point. And that point is that throughout the years I've observed many members of the LDS Church, in talks and lessons, present an innacurate Modalistic caricature of the traditional Christian Trinity, incorrectly teaching as truth that non-LDS Christians -- in spite of abundant New Testament scriptures that prove the contrary -- do not believe there are three separate personages in the Godhead. Latter-day Saints would do well to realize traditional Christians reject Modalism (one God in three manifestations). There's enough theological and doctrinal divergency between the Latter-day Saints and the Catholics and Protestants without inventing new ones that don't exist. Understanding and respectful dialogue are facilitated through an accurate understanding and presentation of each other's respective beliefs.

So to put the record straight, would you say that traditional Christians generally see God's unity and trinity in the same way LDS do? I would, and I said generally considering that as with most rules there are usually some exceptions, with some actually accepting Modalism.

And for the record, I was once a traditional Chrisitan and my understanding of God's unity and trinity didn't change when I became LDS because I could see that LDS see God the same way I did as a traditional Christian. There are 3 persons, actually many more than 3 persons, but all of them are the kind of being we refer to as God.

And for those who don't know, we also use the word/name/title "God" when referring to any of those persons, specifically, and commonly as a reference to our Father in heaven. So the word/name/titlle "God" has more than only one meaning:

1) a reference to a kind of being, with that kind considered to be the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

2) a reference to our Father in heaven, who we consider to be a perfect and perfectly good person who is that kind of being

3) a reference usually limited to those persons who are as perfect and good as our Father in heaven.

4) a reference to any person who is that kind of being, whether or not that person is as perfect and good as our Father in heaven.

Satan is also the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. He's just the evil antithesis, while our Father is perfectly good.

[Damien the Leper]

As opposed to what?

The actual reality of things according to God that have absolutely zero human influence.

[mfbukowski]

The actual reality of things according to God that have absolutely zero human influence.

Claims about a reality we cannot even know about? Hardly.

[mfbukowski]

I am still short on time but I promised a reply and will give a short one. I still hope to give a longer one when I can.

Hi bukowski.

According to its proponents, Thomists insist that the Trinity is a mystery.

You know, you are absolutely right. I was unaware of that and insofar as I said otherwise I was mistaken.

But he was a subscriber to the Nicene Creed and as such believed in God being consubstantial with his Son. I am not sure I see how that is consistent with his position on the Trinity then.

Do Orthodox and Protestants "tie it all together with transubstantiation"? No.

You do realize that transubstantiation is an expression that wasn't used until the 13th Century, and then only by Catholics, right? This is where the error begins in your opinion, post 1250 AD? So what about the Orthodox and Protestants who reject transubstantiation? How late is it until the error begins for them? You have the right to your opinion, but the formulae for the doctrines of God were not made with any consideration for the doctrines of the Eucharist. The Council of Nicea occurred 900 years before the Dumb Ox was born in 1227. By the way, tomorrow is his feast day. Be as kind as you can to poor St. Thomas.

This is getting too convoluted for my non-medieval mind, but I think you are mistaken. It's pretty clear that Thomas taught transubstantiation, I think since none of this is too clear to me to be honest:

http://www.didymus.org/thomas-aquinas-on-transubstantiation.html

Further, New Advent quotes Thomas thusly:

I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm

As I mentioned above, St. Peter affirms that we can be partakers of the divine nature.

---2 Peter 1:4

Yep. We ARE partakers of the divine "nature" right now because we have the same nature as God because he, like Christ, is a man and they are DIVINE, and we are commanded to be "perfect" as our Father is; we would not be so commanded if it wasn't possible.

Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants believe that there is one indefinable, mysterious, divine nature. Do all Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature? When we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, you don't like it. But I don't think you disagree. Are they not consubstantial according to LDS teaching? Did the Father have a Son with a different nature than Himself? What would account for that? That is what I am asking when I ask if "Mormons believe there is more than one divine nature"? What about Christ? Do you think He has the same human nature as us? Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants say Christ has the same one human nature as us. The Council of Chalcedon means that when it affirms that Christ is consubstantial with us.

The purpose of these formulae are not so sinister as Mormons have been led to believe. In historical context, it was to affirm the divine nature of the Son at Nicea, and the human nature of the Son at Chalcedon. Was Jesus fully God? We say yes. Fully man? We say yes. How do we believe this? Our philosophy can't help. This doctrine is completely driven by revelation, and that is why we believe things that are not explainable by philosophy as you have pointed out bukowski. If Catholics have tried to explain these things philosophically it is folly. If they have failed it establishes our doctrine as the mystery that it is revealed to be.

I hate that terminology, but fine if you want to use it, yes. God and all humanity partake of the same "nature". We are one family. Because some of us are Divine, that doesn't change their "nature" any more than being black or white changes their nature. We are all one family. Some are embryos and some are Gods, but we are all human in one sense or another.

This isn't Plato or Aquinas. The Scriptures themselves introduce this concept of nature as applied to God in 2 Peter 1:4. How many divine natures do Mormons think St. Peter was talking about?

Oh yes it is Plato and Aquinas. And if you want to use the abstract concept of "nature" which really doesn't mean much, fine. We ARE all one nature- human!

PS: For you Mormons who have such a low opinion for St. Thomas, tell Dr. Peterson. He named one of his kids after him!

My favorite uncle was a Catholic scholastic philosopher named "Thomas". I have never said anything about haviing anything but the highest esteem for Aquinas AND his philosophy.

He did what was politically correct for his time- he helped reconcile the philosophy of substance with Church doctrine. He did the best with the tools he had. But I don't think I would enjoy having a doctor from the 13th century operate on my heart- would you?

It is a myth that philosophy does not "advance" along with math and logic. Of course it advances!

[teddyaware]

So to put the record straight, would you say that traditional Christians generally see God's unity and trinity in the same way LDS do? I would, and I said generally considering that as with most rules there are usually some exceptions, with some actually accepting Modalism.

And for the record, I was once a traditional Chrisitan and my understanding of God's unity and trinity didn't change when I became LDS because I could see that LDS see God the same way I did as a traditional Christian. There are 3 persons, actually many more than 3 persons, but all of them are the kind of being we refer to as God.

And for those who don't know, we also use the word/name/title "God" when referring to any of those persons, specifically, and commonly as a reference to our Father in heaven. So the word/name/titlle "God" has more than only one meaning:

1) a reference to a kind of being, with that kind considered to be the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

2) a reference to our Father in heaven, who we consider to be a perfect and perfectly good person who is that kind of being

3) a reference usually limited to those persons who are as perfect and good as our Father in heaven.

4) a reference to any person who is that kind of being, whether or not that person is as perfect and good as our Father in heaven.

Satan is also the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. He's just the evil antithesis, while our Father is perfectly good.

Interesting stuff! I believe the Latter-day Saints and traditional Trinitarians part company on three key points:

1. We believe God the Father is corporeal, with a glorified body of flesh and bone; while traditional Trinitarians believe God the Father in immaterial, ineffable and "totally other."

2. Latter-day Saint theology can be understood to teach that the shared divine 'substance' that unifies the Father and the Son is the Spirit -- the same Spirit that dwells within and ultimately exalts mortal man; traditional Trinitarians teach (I believe) this unifying substance (homoousios) is something utterly mysterious and beyond comprehension because of its infinitude.

3. We teach believe God the Father invites others of his children to be eternally exalted (not only Christ) so as to join and extend in number the exalted family unit called the Godhead*; traditional Trinitarians (except, perhaps, for the Orthdox tradition) believe exalted men and women will never be able to share in God's ultimate eternal perfection because he alone is infinite in nature.

*20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

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:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The exalted heavenly family the Saviour describes above is also know as the Church of the Firstborn.

[Ahab]

Interesting stuff! I believe the Latter-day Saints and traditional Trinitarians part company on three key points:

1. We believe God the Father is corporeal, with a glorified body of flesh and bone; while traditional Trinitarians believe God the Father in immaterial, ineffable and "totally other."

Not me, I was a traditional Christian/Trinitarian. I actually had never thought much about it, because his body wasn't talked about, although I/we did teach that God is a Spirit. But that doesn't and didn't rule out the possibility or thought that he also had a body like Jesus. What we are is a Spirit, too, and the Spirit in us is the same kind of Spirit in him, thus our Spirit is the Spirit of God. That's the kind of Spirit in our kind of being, because "God" is the kind of being we are. That's a little deeper than I had thought about it before becoming LDS, btw, but I was taught nothing contrary to that idea before, because I relied on "only the Bible" and the Spirit of God as he helped me to understand.

2. Latter-day Saint theology can be understood to teach that the shared divine 'substance' that unifies the Father and the Son is the Spirit -- the same Spirit that dwells within and ultimately exalts mortal man; traditional Trinitarians teach (I believe) this unifying substance (homoousios) is something utterly mysterious and beyond comprehension because of its infinitude.

Some just don't know what to think, or where to find the additional truth they don't know, but it's not as if what we know as LDS contradicts their beliefs or teachings as taught from the Bible. It's only when they go outside the Bible to their own philosphies and opinions that they go off track. We have the Bible in common, don't cha know. They just lack or fail to realize there is more scripture than what is in the Bible. That's where I was before I found out about the Book of Mormon. I had never even heard of the book until I was about 29 years old, and I was an associate minister working under my Dad who was the primary minister in our congregation. You should have seen the look on his face when I told him about it, though. He had heard about it but had never mentioned it to me.

3. We teach believe God the Father invites others of his children to be eternally exalted (not only Christ) so as to join and extend in number the exalted family unit called the Godhead*; traditional Trinitarians (except, perhaps, for the Orthdox tradition) believe exalted men and women will never be able to share in God's ultimate eternal perfection because he alone is infinite in nature.

I think a lot of it has to do with the way people say things. The underlying thoughts are usually there, though. I understood that through Jesus I could be "exalted" although I didn't use the word "exalted" to refer to my saved condition.

The exalted heavenly family the Saviour describes above is also know as the Church of the Firstborn.

Or aka Zion.

[teddyaware]

Not me, I was a traditional Christian/Trinitarian. I actually had never thought much about it, because his body wasn't talked about, although I/we did teach that God is a Spirit. But that doesn't and didn't rule out the possibility or thought that he also had a body like Jesus. What we are is a Spirit, too, and the Spirit in us is the same kind of Spirit in him, thus our Spirit is the Spirit of God. That's the kind of Spirit in our kind of being, because "God" is the kind of being we are. That's a little deeper than I had thought about it before becoming LDS, btw, but I was taught nothing contrary to that idea before, because I relied on "only the Bible" and the Spirit of God as he helped me to understand.

Some just don't know what to think, or where to find the additional truth they don't know, but it's not as if what we know as LDS contradicts their beliefs or teachings as taught from the Bible. It's only when they go outside the Bible to their own philosphies and opinions that they go off track. We have the Bible in common, don't cha know. They just lack or fail to realize there is more scripture than what is in the Bible. That's where I was before I found out about the Book of Mormon. I had never even heard of the book until I was about 29 years old, and I was an associate minister working under my Dad who was the primary minister in our congregation. You should have seen the look on his face when I told him about it, though. He had heard about it but had never mentioned it to me.

I think a lot of it has to do with the way people say things. The underlying thoughts are usually there, though. I understood that through Jesus I could be "exalted" although I didn't use the word "exalted" to refer to my saved condition.

Or aka Zion.

Good stuff. I agree with all your observations. Because of your background, you have a unique perspective that enables you to find commonality of belief where others might fail to do so. I emphatically agree that language can create barriers where none really exist. It's called the tyranny of language -- "Say it the way I would say it or we don't agree! BwaaaaaaaaAAAH!"

[mfbukowski]

It's called the tyranny of language -- "Say it the way I would say it or we don't agree! BwaaaaaaaaAAAH!"

Yes and no. That might be right or not- the problem is that language is fuzzy and if they are NOT "saying it the way I would say it" you can't tell if what they are saying is the "same" or not.

You only get at that through discussion of each other's definition of the words.

[Ahab]

Yes and no. That might be right or not- the problem is that language is fuzzy and if they are NOT "saying it the way I would say it" you can't tell if what they are saying is the "same" or not.

You only get at that through discussion of each other's definition of the words.

Or by already having an understanding of what they mean by the way they say things, which all tracks back to a discussion at some point in the past, so, yeah, communicating with words does somehow help us to come to an understanding of each other and the the things that are true and the things that aren't right, too.

[3DOP]

Interesting stuff! I believe the Latter-day Saints and traditional Trinitarians part company on three key points:

1. We believe God the Father is corporeal, with a glorified body of flesh and bone; while traditional Trinitarians believe God the Father in immaterial, ineffable and "totally other."

2. Latter-day Saint theology can be understood to teach that the shared divine 'substance' that unifies the Father and the Son is the Spirit -- the same Spirit that dwells within and ultimately exalts mortal man; traditional Trinitarians teach (I believe) this unifying substance (homoousios) is something utterly mysterious and beyond comprehension because of its infinitude.

3. We teach believe God the Father invites others of his children to be eternally exalted (not only Christ) so as to join and extend in number the exalted family unit called the Godhead*; traditional Trinitarians (except, perhaps, for the Orthdox tradition) believe exalted men and women will never be able to share in God's ultimate eternal perfection because he alone is infinite in nature.

*20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I inthee, 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:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The exalted heavenly family the Saviour describes above is also know as the Church of the Firstborn.

That seems like a fairly good summary.

1) The corporeality of the Father in LDS thought is not necessarily as significant as it might appear to be on both sides. Do you say that whatever it is that makes the Father God, includes corporeality? I have thought that both sides agree that Jesus was God before He took a body, and so is the Holy Ghost. In any event, as a Catholic, I can not say that corporeality is problematic for God.

2) The "divine nature", to use a biblical expression that seems less troublesome to LDS ears, is what unites Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Traditional view. I would agree that we hold that unlike other natures, the divine nature is beyond our ability to define. But LDS can fully comprehend this nature? Even though it is finite, it seems like this would be a bold claim. In any case, we must plead our inability to grasp the infinite, as you have understood.

3) The only-begotten Son is of course what the Father is, God. Hearkening back to Genesis, biological reproduction clearly occurs, "after their kind." We understand that what takes place in creation is similar to the reproduction of the divine nature. The Son has all of the divine nature. We do not affirm that the adopted children of God always become 100% "after God's kind", but that is the goal. Through God's loving condescension to us, our potential to partake of the divine nature is only limited by our lack of cooperation. In the passage of St. John's first epistle that encourages us to realize our potential exaltation, there immediately follows warnings that we must have this hope of being like God, and we fail sometimes:

Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. And every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy...[but]...Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him.

---I Jn. 3:2,3 and 6

So anyway, we believe in degrees of glory in heaven. But our potential for exaltation is not limited on the side of our Father who has adopted us as His own. I can provide many many references from every era to show that the Latin Church in no way diminishes the possibilities of deification which you correctly ascribe to the Eastern Rite Churches.

3DOP