Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[Sp0ckrates]

Flyonthewall:

First of all I want to say thank you for answering my questions. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the Mormon faith--as I've learned about other Christian faiths--before I decide whether it is the one for me.

Second of all, I hope you don't mind my insatiable curiosity. If you are a fly on the wall, I suppose I'm a gadfly whose questions sometimes annoy. But i find with each question someone answers I get closer to accepting the truth.

Basically, as I see it, and others can refine it to their liking, when the scriptures say the Lord is "one" or there is "one" Lord, you can replace the word "one" with "united" or "in unity with"... Not that there is "one being".

I think, perhaps you are referring to this scripture, or one like it:

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

(Deuteronomy 6)

We each believe there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - each are separate individuals.

LDS use the term "being" as an entity that is or was alive. A person is a "being". An animal is a "being". A fish is a "being", a bird is a "being". We can put descriptors in front such as "human" being but that does not change the premise.

LDS say there are 3 that are unified in function, purpose, and testimony.

When Jesus taught that He and His Father are "one" - we understand that they are united or in unity with each other.

Jesus also taught that we could be one with Him as He and His Father are one. We believe this is to be in unity with them as they are in unity with each other.

I suppose you mean this passage, or one like it:

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

(John 10)

This does not work in the Trinitarian belief. Oh, yes, they will tell you it does, but not without contradictions in terms.

I agree that any contradiction is illogical, and so it can never be true.

To me, I can agree with the concept of the Trinity to a point, then it simply breaks down into contradictions and becomes chaotic.

Three persons cannot be one being. They can be of one heart and one mind but they are still 3 different and separate beings.

It seems to me that some have to attribute to God fantastical, mythological, magical qualities that defy logic and reason, to drive home the point that God is nothing like us... when in fact God created us in His likeness and image.

I agree that it would be a contradiction to say God is three beings in one being, or one being in three beings. It is illogical to say that given (a) something can be (a) and not (a).

We are children of the Most High and as such we can be like Him... but there is a huge gap of where we are and where He is. It will take us an eternity of learning, and refining, and becoming, to be like Him.

This earth life is one step in that process.

Since this can ramble on in so many different directions I will stop here.

Well said. So do Mormons believe the Lord is three gods in one group? That is, do you believe the word Lord refers to the group, not any of the group's individuals?

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall:

First of all I want to say thank you for answering my questions. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the Mormon faith--as I've learned about other Christian faiths--before I decide whether it is the one for me.

Second of all, I hope you don't mind my insatiable curiosity. If you are a fly on the wall, I suppose I'm a gadfly whose questions sometimes annoy. But i find with each question someone answers I get closer to accepting the truth.

I think, perhaps you are referring to this scripture, or one like it:

 

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

(Deuteronomy 6)

Yes, this is one traditional Christians use to make 3 persons = 1 being.

 

 

I suppose you mean this passage, or one like it:

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

(John 10)

Yes, this among others.

 

 

 

I agree that any contradiction is illogical, and so it can never be true.

I agree that it would be a contradiction to say God is three beings in one being, or one being in three beings. It is illogical to say that given (a) something can be (a) and not (a).

Well said. So do Mormons believe the Lord is three gods in one group? That is, do you believe the word Lord refers to the group, not any of the group's individuals?

I can only speak for myself as an LDS member, but generally when the word "Lord" is used it is referring to Jesus Christ.

I have asked of much more educated people than I, if we can equate "Lord" with Jesus Christ only, but have been told that sometimes it could refer to the Father(I could not give an example of where this is but that is the answer I got).

Here is a link to a magazine article in the Ensign(an LDS church magazine) from June 2002

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/lord-jehovah?lang=eng&query=lord

Sooo, generally speaking, "Lord" = Jesus Christ with few exceptions.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[Sp0ckrates]

Yes, this is one traditional Christians use to make 3 persons = 1 being.

Well, having discussed the doctrine with those who believe it, they tell me:

There is one God in three persons

This is different from saying there are three persons in one God. It is also not the same as saying there is one being in three beings. God is not a person, they say. In other words,

God is one what in three whos

and to say that God is one what in three whos is not an illogical contradiction. But it might be that although logical, it is not true.

... I can only speak for myself as an LDS member, but generally when the word "Lord" is used it is referring to Jesus Christ.

I have asked of much more educated people than I, if we can equate "Lord" with Jesus Christ only, but have been told that sometimes it could refer to the Father(I could not give an example of where this is but that is the answer I got).

Here is a link to a magazine article in the Ensign(an LDS church magazine) from June 2002

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/lord-jehovah?lang=eng&query=lord

Sooo, generally speaking, "Lord" = Jesus Christ with few exceptions.

Thanks for the link. It makes things clearer to know LORD refers to the Son of God and not the Father God.

But I'm not sure I understand from where the idea comes that there are three gods. When you hear these words,

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

(Deuteronomy 6:4)

do you understand them to mean this?

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is [a united] Lord.

(Deuteronomy 6:4)

If so, it sounds like this could describe either what Mormons believe or what Trinitarians believe. Is there another passage of scripture that is less ambiguous and more clearly Mormon? Or is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three different gods only clearly taught in the Book of Mormon?

Edited June 14, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Flyonthewall]

Well, having discussed the doctrine with those who believe it, they tell me:

There is one God in three persons

This is different from saying there are three persons in one God. It is also not the same as saying there is one being in three beings. God is not a person, they say. In other words,

God is one what in three whos

and to say that God is one what in three whos is not an illogical contradiction. But it might be that although logical, it is not true.

They also say God is one being so 3 persons in 1 being is... well should still hold as true to what they say.

And just where does Cindy Lou Who fit in?

Thanks for the link. But I thought you said the word Lord refers to the group of three gods, as in this verse:

 

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

(Deuteronomy 6:4)

I think you said it means, "The Lord our God is one [united group]." Are you saying sometimes the word Lord refers to one of the three and other times it refers to the group of three?

I don't recall saying that, but if I did, then that is inaccurate. "Lord" is generally referring to Jehova/Jesus Christ. I have been told by others that "Lord" can sometimes refer to the Father, but I don't have a good example of that, so if you just take as "Lord" = Jehova/Jesus then that works.

There are 3 divine persons that are united in one Godhead.

The Most High God is God the Father. Jehova and the Holy Spirit are united in purpose and testimony with the Father and each are called God by themselves, but the Father is the one that directs everything. He is the one in charge so to speak.

If you want to liken it to a temporal organization, then we have one in our church that is like it - a Stake Presidency.

In our church a "Stake" is made up of 5 or 6 Wards or Congregations. There is a President that has 2 Counselors that also have the title "President". There is one that is responsible for the overall decisions made for the Stake and the 2 Counselors have responsibility over different areas under the direction of the President.

Though there is only one President, there are 3 that are called "President", and they operate in unison with each other.

[stephenpurdy]

I can only speak for myself as an LDS member, but generally when the word "Lord" is used it is referring to Jesus Christ.

I have asked of much more educated people than I, if we can equate "Lord" with Jesus Christ only, but have been told that sometimes it could refer to the Father(I could not give an example of where this is but that is the answer I got).

 

 

You can also think of it this way:  This thread opened with Hebrews chapter 1 and you can see a more detailed explanation there.  In addition ... in that chapter where we get the imagery of a Kingdom,  God the Father is the King and then then Jesus Christ is the heir to the throne.  As such, Christ "inherits" the names and titles of the Father, including the name "Lord". 

 

Being made so much better than the angels, as he (Christ) hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (verse 4)

 

 

By the way, it does not make sense for a single Being to "choose" itself or "inherit" from itself.  Especially if you are trying to consider that single Being as some kind of simple/single substance, which is what the Christian creeds describe.

 

-stephen

[Sp0ckrates]

They also say God is one being so 3 persons in 1 being is... well should still hold as true to what they say.

They are mistaken. To be fair, we should make our case against the correct understanding of the doctrine, not someone's misunderstanding. We should criticize the real argument, not some straw man. The real argument is this:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold") defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: The Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; one God in three persons. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.

The Trinity

And just where does Cindy Lou Who fit in?

LOL! If you promise to not poke fun at my Dr. Seuss reference, I promise to not give you a hard time for using the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz! (Actually, I like to laugh and even at myself. So please feel free to kid around. It makes the discussion more fun.)

I don't recall saying that, but if I did, then that is inaccurate. "Lord" is generally referring to Jehova/Jesus Christ. I have been told by others that "Lord" can sometimes refer to the Father, but I don't have a good example of that, so if you just take as "Lord" = Jehova/Jesus then that works.

Sorry for being clear as mud! I got the idea not from you but from the link you gave me. I might have misunderstood, but it seemed to say all references to LORD in the Old Testsament referee to the Son of God, only.

There are 3 divine persons that are united in one Godhead.

The Most High God is God the Father. Jehova and the Holy Spirit are united in purpose and testimony with the Father and each are called God by themselves, but the Father is the one that directs everything. He is the one in charge so to speak.

If you want to liken it to a temporal organization, then we have one in our church that is like it - a Stake Presidency.

In our church a "Stake" is made up of 5 or 6 Wards or Congregations. There is a President that has 2 Counselors that also have the title "President". There is one that is responsible for the overall decisions made for the Stake and the 2 Counselors have responsibility over different areas under the direction of the President.

Though there is only one President, there are 3 that are called "President", and they operate in unison with each other.

Thanks for explaining. So is this what you mean? Whenever I read the word Godhead in the New Testament, it is referring to all three gods. But when I read the capitalized words Lord or God or Holy Ghost or Spirit, they each refer to only one of the gods, but not all three. Edited June 15, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

By the way, it does not make sense for a single Being to "choose" itself or "inherit" from itself. Especially if you are trying to consider that single Being as some kind of simple/single substance, which is what the Christian creeds describe.

-stephen

Hey, Stephen. I agree it does not make sense. But it also is not what Trinitarians believe. They don't believe God is one being in three beings. They believe God is one nature in three beings.

The Trinity

So as I said to Flyonthewall, we may not reject it for being illogical, since it is logical. But being logical does not necessarily make it true.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Anakin7]

    Sp0ckrates in your post above # 32 did you mean to say - " They believe God is one nature in three "persons" [ instead of three beings ] " ?.

 

    In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                 Anakin7

[Sp0ckrates]

Sp0ckrates in your post above # 32 did you mean to say - " They believe God is one nature in three "persons" [ instead of three beings ] " ?.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Anakin: Since the word being was being used, I substituted being for person. For I believe they are synonyms. Why do you ask? Edited June 15, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Anakin7]

  Its just that for the past 25 + years while in conversation with my EV friends I need to be carefull with my use of theological terminology such as "Being/Beings" which can mean Individual entities or essence, nature,substance. Thanks.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

Edited June 15, 2015 by Anakin7

[Sp0ckrates]

Its just that for the past 25 + years while in conversation with my EV friends I need to be carefull with my use of theological terminology such as "Being/Beings" which can mean Individual entities or essence, nature,substance. Thanks.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

No problem.

It does seem odd to think of God as a what, rather than a who, Anakin. I suppose that means they believe the one collection of attributes are God (e.g., omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence) and this one collection of attributes exists in three divine persons. So it is as though there are three individuals who have a one shared wisdom, power, presence and compassion--a shared consciousness, if you will.

The closest analogy I can think of is that of a server connected to three thin clients. A thin client is something like a computer, but not as self-sufficient. Its software or apps are powered by and run on a more powerful computer called a server.

Disconnect a thin client from a local area network or cloud-based network, and it cannot run any software or apps. It's pretty much useless. For each thin client relies on the processor and apps of the server, which it shares with the other thin clients.

Do you think this is a good analogy? If so, do you see any flaws in the concept of one God in three persons being like one server running in three thin clients?

Edited June 15, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[thesometimesaint]

I think one of the best exposition of LDS beliefs about the Godhead comes from John 17.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng

[TheSkepticChristian]

    Sp0ckrates in your post above # 32 did you mean to say - " They believe God is one nature in three "persons" [ instead of three beings ] " ?.

 

¨being¨and ¨person¨are the same thing. A person is a being. 

 

 

The closest analogy I can think of is that of a server connected to three thin clients. A thin client is something like a computer, but not as self-sufficient. Its software or apps are powered by and run on a more powerful computer called a server.?

 

There is no useful analogy, please watch the video 

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Disconnect a thin client from a local area network or cloud-based network, and it cannot run any software or apps. It's pretty much useless. For each thin client relies on the processor and apps of the server, which it shares with the other thin clients.

Do you think this is a good analogy? If so, do you see any flaws in the concept of one God in three persons being like one server running in three thin clients?

Yes, because each member of the God head has a different roll. With a thin client they are all the same thing hooked up to a server. Doing or serving roughly the same purpose.

[Anakin7]

       Whenever I speak to an evangelical they always state that "Being" is nature, essence, substance.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

[Flyonthewall]

I have been told by Trinitarians that when speaking of God, "being" does not equal "person". I have been told that there are 3 persons in one Being. That "being" is nature/substance/essence.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I have been told by Trinitarians that when speaking of God, "being" does not equal "person". I have been told that there are 3 persons in one Being. That "being" is nature/substance/essence.

 

What does that even mean? 

 

[Flyonthewall]

What does that even mean?

I couldn't tell you what it means, I can only parrot back to you what I have heard.

I can see what the concept of the Trinity is trying to do but it sacrifices some truth to do it.

To say there is only one God, but have 3 divine persons - they have gone overboard on plugging holes to maintain "monotheism".

[Sp0ckrates]

Yes, because each member of the God head has a different roll. With a thin client they are all the same thing hooked up to a server. Doing or serving roughly the same purpose.

Yes, but I think perhaps an analogy closer to Mormon teaching might be that of a local area network (LAN). In a LAN each computer has its own software and runs on its own system resources. In a LAN each computer is connected and communicates with the other computers, sometimes sharing files with the other computers. But should one of the computers be disconnected from the LAN, it would not become a paperweight. It would still function, albeit with some limitations.

Each computer in a LAN is capable of operating on its own, but is more efficient operating in a group. This is different form the Trinitarian analogy. Just as taking the server from the thin clue bent causes it to cease to function as a computer, so too taking the nature of God out of the three persons would cause them to cease to be God.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

I have been told by Trinitarians that when speaking of God, "being" does not equal "person". I have been told that there are 3 persons in one Being. That "being" is nature/substance/essence.

Yes, I did some research and discovered your understanding is correct. The doctrine of the Trinity does indeed teach that God is one being in three persons. Thanks for correcting my error.

It appears, then that each person is believed to not have a separate being, but shares the one being. That is why Trinitarians say it is not a logical contradiction.

I suppose they would say personhood is not a synonym for being. It is instead an attribute of being. Where you and I have one person to our one being, they say God has three persons to his one being.

So it seems the idea is not an illogical contradiction, but being logical does not necessarily make it true.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

I couldn't tell you what it means, I can only parrot back to you what I have heard.

I can see what the concept of the Trinity is trying to do but it sacrifices some truth to do it.

To say there is only one God, but have 3 divine persons - they have gone overboard on plugging holes to maintain "monotheism".

I think you might be right. But if the Trinity cannot be shown to be illogical or impossible, then how do we demonstrate you definitely are right? Can we use the Bible to show the doctrine is incorrect, or does the require the Book of Mormon?

[bluebell]

I think you might be right. But if the Trinity cannot be shown to be illogical or impossible, then how do we demonstrate you definitely are right? Can we use the Bible to show the doctrine is incorrect, or does the require the Book of Mormon?

 

This has probably already been brought up, but the evidence that i use to prove that the concept of the Trinity is illogical to me is how Christ Himself defines 'being one'.

 

He tells us in the bible that we are to be one, just like He and the Father are one.  That right there tells me that He does not mean that the Father and He (and the Holy Spirit) are three persons in one being, co-eternal and co-equal etc,, because it's not possible for us to be that kind of 'one' with Him.  

 

So, from my perspective, He must mean something different when He speaks of the one-ness between Him and the Father than how Trinitarians interpret it. 

[thesometimesaint]

In the Bible Jesus claims to not know somethings that his father knows; claims to do only what he has seen his father do; that others will be one as he is with his father.

The Trinitarian Monotheistic Model is illogical on its face.

[Sp0ckrates]

This has probably already been brought up, but the evidence that i use to prove that the concept of the Trinity is illogical to me is how Christ Himself defines 'being one'.

He tells us in the bible that we are to be one, just like He and the Father are one. That right there tells me that He does not mean that the Father and He (and the Holy Spirit) are three persons in one being, co-eternal and co-equal etc,, because it's not possible for us to be that kind of 'one' with Him.

So, from my perspective, He must mean something different when He speaks of the one-ness between Him and the Father than how Trinitarians interpret it.

Agreed, Bluebell. This passage is indeed not speaking of the Son and the Father sharing one nature. It's speaking of the relationship between the Son and the Father.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(John 17)

But the passage also doesn't say there isn't one God in three persons, and I don't recall any Trinitarian using it as proof of the doctrine.

The persons of the Trinity can logically have a relationship with one another and at the same time have one God in each of them (Trinity meaning one God in three persons). So I'm not sure how it proves the doctrine is illogical or inaccurate.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[thesometimesaint]

If you put it as one Godhead consisting of three persons I'd be OK with that.