Why is the trinity so important?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

He looks half Japanese.

We're all turning Japanese, I really think so. 

 

[teddyaware]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But all this is dependent on the "debt" theory of the atonement, which has major problems imo.

It depends on the need for a Human Sacrifice which somehow is supposed to balance "mercy and justice", through some unknowable mechanism which goes unquestioned in trying to understand what all this means.

But what if there was ONE person- whose personal sacrifice was not to "balance" by some totally vague interpretation - "justice" with "mercy"- that's two incomprehensible abstractions understood as if they are tangible and measurable commodities and one incomprehensible mechanism- supposedly paying for sin, all of which is supposedly made possible by human sacrifice. 

Yes that's a mystery all right!

 Let us instead see it as one being who made a different kind of sacrifice for a different purpose, the sacrifice of empathy and lowering oneself- a God- below the most lowly of his children and felt the worst pain they could feel so that they knew that One like themselves had already been through it all, and by under-going, they themselves have the opportunity of over-coming, as he did.

That being's sacrifice was to completely and totally give up Godhood - and "omnipotence" and all that it implies- voluntarily- to fully and completely understand the joys and miseries, temptations and triumphs of his children so that each of his chldren could know that there WAS a real being who could give them comfort in any possible situation since he/she had already done that, and overcame every pain both psychological and physical, and felt every joy possible, and so also providing a model showing that every sin, every pain, every heartache- every positive or negative experience humans were capable of having- had already been overcome by this hypothetical exemplar.   And so in those moments of terror and pain and insanity, we could know that ONE had already been through worse, and He was now capable of sharing the worst we can have with him as our brother, friend, father and beloved one.

And so we are freed from pain and guilt "after all we can do" through the grace of knowing that this omnipotent being gave it all up for each of us, through his "omni-empathetic love", the one and only "omni" we need, that still goes without acknowledgement    

And so by emulating this being they could know personally when they had done "all they can do" to repent of sins and problems that plagued them, and be mentally and physically healed and freed from the burden of guilt, and know in the case of physical or mental pain that One had been through more than they even had the capability to understand.

Like him then, by undergoing all, we can overcome all and be healed.   We can overcome the world and all the troubles and triumphs it has to give us as he has overcome the world, and thereby emulate him and eventually become like him.

As I see it, this paradigm avoids the need for a trinity of employees with different jobs and explains sacrifice without human sacrifice and places love and empathy at the center of the equation instead of justice balancing mercy through human sacrifice, which I find incomprehensible

The infinite and eternal atonement is not a “human sacrifice.” I’m sure you know this very well. 

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. (Alma 34)

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

There was a story later on that he was a ******* son of a Roman soldier, Panthera.  If he didn’t take after his mother’s family and looked like Joseph somewhat, I suspect those kinds of rumors would have appeared a lot sooner. 

Son of Panthera? The Panthera?

 

 

 

No wonder Jesus was so amazing.

[bOObOO]

On 9/1/2021 at 12:30 PM, Fether said:

I have heard the notion that we (latter-day Saints) worship the wrong Jesus many times in my life. As I push that comment further, I have always found that it is entirely because we believe in the God head and not the trinity. I then follow up with the question “so salvation is not found in accepting Christ, or by his grace and mercy, or in the blood of Christ? But rather salvation is found through theological study of God and his nature and coming to a correct conclusion?”

To which I haven’t heard anything convincing or really all that informative.

So what is so important about believing in the trinity for traditional Christians? Many will say that if you don’t believe in the trinitarian nature, you are not only wrong, but at risk of damnation

I think most who place a lot of value in their belief in the trinity also place a lot of value in truth, in general, with truth about God the most valuable type of truth, in their perspective, in general..  

It is true that there are 3 persons who are God and that those 3 persons are in unity.  So those who know about God and how those 3 persons are in unity place a lot of value in knowing that.  Makes sense, I think.  Why not think it is important to know that?

[Eph2,8]

18 hours ago, Fether said:

I understand the difference. My question is why do so many Christians demand we accept the trinity? It seems, after all Christ has done and all the beautiful doctrine, how does rejecting the trinity damn one to hell?

If you're thinking in your head "Christ and the trinity", you are already starting on the wrong foot. Mainstream Christianity does not say "you have to accept Christ and the trinity." They are one in the same. Thus, rejecting the trinity is rejecting Christ. Why? Because the Christians see God in a completely different light. He is utterly and completely "One". He has no ending, no beginning. He has, in the personage of the Father, an incorporeal essence. He lives outside of the Laws of Nature, transcending time, space, gender, etc. Jesus is God incarnate, God in the flesh. To them, if you reject the trinity you reject the reality of who Christ is. How can you find eternal life by "knowing" a being that you do not in fact know?

Imagine that someone dug up an old story where Thor died on a cross for the world. Some people might say, "well, we can have faith in Thor and we are just like you!" We would call them heretics - and rightly so! That is, essentially, how a lot of mainstream Christians see us. It's not just a different set of beliefs, it's a completely different God. 

In short, Christians believe that the only God who is capable of salvation is their Triune God. Anything else - and we are something else - is incapable of producing salvation. Just as we would say Thor is incapable of producing salvation. 

Does that help at all? These are actually, in my opinion, very large and consequential differences. The trinity is so much more fascinating than we Latter-day Saints often give it credit for. We often misunderstand it as "Modalism" or similar doctrines. 

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We're all turning Japanese, I really think so. 

 

My Momma told me that if I kept squinting my eyes that my eyes would stay that way.  So I learned to stop squinting my eyes.  And I also learned how to articulate my letters correctly.  You really wouldn't understand me if I tried to speak Japanese.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because we're not actually worshipping their Christ?  The being we worship has entirely different traits.

This was the position of McConkie and his son as well as other more literal LDS leaders.  If you have it wrong about God's attributes you are worshipping a false God and false Jesus and won't be saved.  The EVs feel the same way about us.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Rivers said:

Monotheism.  Keeping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one God keeps Christianity monotheistic.  
 

But as to why is monotheism so important, I don’t know.

OT is allegedly monotheistic. You know that Here oh Israel the Lord thy God is One God and no other Gods beside me and all that. Though that probably came later and the early Hebrews were polytheistic.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

If you're thinking in your head "Christ and the trinity"

I’m referring to accepting the trinity in concept, not the beings that make up said trinity.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Why not think it is important to know that?

It is important, as is reading scripture and saying prayer every day. but it goes beyond important. Many Christians believe you will be damned if you don’t understand and accept the trinity in its entirety. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

Imagine that someone dug up an old story where Thor died on a cross for the world. Some people might say, "well, we can have faith in Thor and we are just like you!" We would call them heretics - and rightly so! That is, essentially, how a lot of mainstream Christians see us. It's not just a different set of beliefs, it's a completely different God. 

But that isn’t what we are saying. We didn’t rename Christ, we aren’t claiming he is a different person entirely, we just believe his nature is different than what other describe. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree he wasn't a white northern European.  But his mother was a Jew and his father was a resurrected God of no known ethnicity.  Goodness knows what his genetics showed as.

Another reason EVs don't consider Mormons Christian. We make have a God that is the same species as we are and they utterly reject that.  Though I often wonder how they get around Jesus on that one.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

If you're thinking in your head "Christ and the trinity", you are already starting on the wrong foot. Mainstream Christianity does not say "you have to accept Christ and the trinity." They are one in the same. Thus, rejecting the trinity is rejecting Christ. Why? Because the Christians see God in a completely different light. He is utterly and completely "One". He has no ending, no beginning. He has, in the personage of the Father, an incorporeal essence. He lives outside of the Laws of Nature, transcending time, space, gender, etc. Jesus is God incarnate, God in the flesh. To them, if you reject the trinity you reject the reality of who Christ is. How can you find eternal life by "knowing" a being that you do not in fact know?

Imagine that someone dug up an old story where Thor died on a cross for the world. Some people might say, "well, we can have faith in Thor and we are just like you!" We would call them heretics - and rightly so! That is, essentially, how a lot of mainstream Christians see us. It's not just a different set of beliefs, it's a completely different God. 

In short, Christians believe that the only God who is capable of salvation is their Triune God. Anything else - and we are something else - is incapable of producing salvation. Just as we would say Thor is incapable of producing salvation. 

Does that help at all? These are actually, in my opinion, very large and consequential differences. The trinity is so much more fascinating than we Latter-day Saints often give it credit for. We often misunderstand it as "Modalism" or similar doctrines. 

Based on your name and profile pic, I would not have guessed that you are Latter-day Saint.  Am I misunderstanding that you are a Latter-day Saint?

No one "knows" God as he is.  We all perceive the elephant differently (Blind man and the elephant) in mortality, even within our own faith.  Exaltation, and thus knowing God, is something we learn over time.  Even though we may all describe the elephant differently (and may even call him by different names - as I remember teaching in the old-school missionary discussion, 1st discussion), we are all touching the same elephant.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"   As we stay true to the light we have been given, our perspective of God is enlarged, until we ultimately become like Him. 

[Eph2,8]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Based on your name and profile pic, I would not have guessed that you are Latter-day Saint.  Am I misunderstanding that you are a Latter-day Saint?

No one "knows" God as he is.  We all perceive the elephant differently (Blind man and the elephant) in mortality, even within our own faith.  Exaltation, and thus knowing God, is something we learn over time.  Even though we may all describe the elephant differently (and may even call him by different names - as I remember teaching in the old-school missionary discussion, 1st discussion), we are all touching the same elephant.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"   As we stay true to the light we have been given, our perspective of God is enlarged, until we ultimately become like Him. 

Well, I suppose it might be a bit disheartening that a cross and scripture about grace implies not Latter-day Saint. But that's a conversation for another day. But yes, I am a Latter-day Saint.

I recognize that no one can know God - at least in a full sense - in this life. I was simply trying to offer perspective for why mainstream Christians are so adamant about the triune god and belief in it. To them, we are not even touching the elephant. We are touching a horse off to the side. The very nature of our God's is vastly different. Whereas me and you might touch different parts of the elephant in understanding the character, emotion, etc of God, someone touching a cat could not claim to also be touching the elephant. For the Christians, you have to at least be touching the elephant to be saved. They don't believe we are. Just trying to pitch in to the original question. 

[MustardSeed]

All of these deep philosophical historical and intellectual explanations on why the trinity is so important don't explain why most of the simpleton's I've encountered who have gasped at the idea that I believe in three separate beings are so attached to the concept of trinity. 

 

I suspect that anything other than what you were taught as a child looks strange.  And anything strange in religion is an abomination. 

[Eph2,8]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

But that isn’t what we are saying. We didn’t rename Christ, we aren’t claiming he is a different person entirely, we just believe his nature is different than what other describe. 

Well sure it's not what we are saying. I was just trying to illustrate a point. But whether or not we want mainstream Christians to see us like that or not, it is pretty much how they see us. Imagine we start at point A - the supposed beginning of God. Christians say no feasible beginning at all - always self existing. We say that He began as God after being exalted (and Jesus after being created). Right there we have two separate understandings of how this Being came to be. It's like saying "well, I know John. He's from Germany!" and then someone else saying "No, I know John. He is from Kuwait!" Are we talking about the same Johns? Then it goes further. Christians say John has blonde hair, blue eyes (triune), we say John has brown hair, grey eyes (3 separate Gods). Soon enough we have two pretty different descriptions of John. Even if we stipulate that John did the same things (miracles, taught doctrine, saved us), one might wonder how we could be discussing the same John if we described him so differently. Does that make sense? the Christians would say "if your John does not have blonde hair he cannot be the same John." 

Remember, people will always assume things even if you don't claim them. Of course we aren't claiming that our Christ is a different person, but that won't stop them from categorizing Him as such. And, quite honestly, from their perspective it makes a lot of sense. It's not starting from the correct perspective, but in my opinion it follows. 

[bOObOO]

19 minutes ago, Fether said:

It is important, as is reading scripture and saying prayer every day. but it goes beyond important. Many Christians believe you will be damned if you don’t understand and accept the trinity in its entirety. 

Damned as in limited by not accepting that knowledge of truth?  We believe people who don't accept some aspect of truth will be limited by not accepting that truth as the truth too. 

Damned as in being tortured by God forever and ever because he just likes torturing people who don't accept some aspect of truth as the truth, though?  No, we do not believe that.

[Eph2,8]

25 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m referring to accepting the trinity in concept, not the beings that make up said trinity.

Again, those are inseparable from the Christians perspective. 

[Eph2,8]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

OT is allegedly monotheistic. You know that Here oh Israel the Lord thy God is One God and no other Gods beside me and all that. Though that probably came later and the early Hebrews were polytheistic.

Deuteronomy 6:4 came later? What's the evidence for that? Honest question, if you got something I really wanna read it. I agree that early Hebrew religion was probably more Henotheistic or polytheistic, but I think saying the Shema was a later addition - or perhaps a later interpretation - is faulty ground for that. Places like Psalm 89 work better imo

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

Again, those are inseparable from the Christians perspective. 

Not as inseparable as you may believe.  Most Christians know the trinity refers to 3 persons who are God and in unity with each other.  That's 3 persons, not only one person, so accepting the trinity means accepting that while there is only one God, or only one kind of being which we refer to as God, that God consists of 3 persons, rather than as only one person.  Only one God but multiple persons who are that God.  And each is distinguishable one from the other, as one person is the Father and another of the 3 is his Son and the other of the 3 is who we refer to as either the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.  One God with 3 persons united with each other.

[Eph2,8]

11 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Not as inseparable as you may believe.  Most Christians know the trinity refers to 3 persons who are God and in unity with each other.  That's 3 persons, not only one person, so accepting the trinity means accepting that while there is only one God, or only one kind of being which we refer to as God, that God consists of 3 persons, rather than as only one person.  Only one God but multiple persons who are that God.  And each is distinguishable one from the other, as one person is the Father and another of the 3 is his Son and the other of the 3 is who we refer to as either the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.  One God with 3 persons united with each other.

Right. I understand all of that. It just seemed as though the OP was trying to separate belief in Christ and belief in the trinity from a mainstream Christian perspective. From their perspective there is no Christ without the trinity. I recognize that they are distinguishable and three persons. He was saying "I can believe in Christ and deny the trinity". Well no, from their perspective you cannot.

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

Right. I understand all of that. It just seemed as though the OP was trying to separate belief in Christ and belief in the trinity from a mainstream Christian perspective. From their perspective there is no Christ without the trinity. I recognize that they are distinguishable and three persons. He was saying "I can believe in Christ and deny the trinity". Well no, from their perspective you cannot.

Okay.  I think I agree with you about that.  To believe in Christ but to deny the trinity would mean to deny that Christ is in unity with his Father and the Holy Spirit, and Christ taught that he was in unity with the Father, at least, which would mean he would have been telling a lie if he was not in unity with him, which would be a sin, which would mean Jesus was not the Christ because the Christ was the one who would come to redeem us from sin, rather than to sin himself, so to believe he was the Christ would be wrong.  So Christians are right about that if Jesus was and still is the Christ and he was and still is in unity with his Father and the Holy Spirit.

[Eph2,8]

4 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Okay.  I think I agree with you about that.  To believe in Christ but to deny the trinity would mean to deny that Christ is in unity with his Father and the Holy Spirit, and Christ taught that he was in unity with the Father, at least, which would mean he would have been telling a lie if he was not in unity with him, which would be a sin, which would mean Jesus was not the Christ because the Christ was the one who would come to redeem us from sin, rather than to sin himself, so to believe he was the Christ would be wrong.  So Christians are right about that if Jesus was and still is the Christ and he was and still is in unity with his Father and the Holy Spirit.

Yes! We agree. It's always so important to approach these kinds of discussions from the shoes of the group we are discussing. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the question might not make sense. From a mainstream Christian perspective, it makes perfect sense. Trying to understand facilitates empathy which makes everyone better off :):)

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

Well, I suppose it might be a bit disheartening that a cross and scripture about grace implies not Latter-day Saint. But that's a conversation for another day. But yes, I am a Latter-day Saint.

I don't find it disheartening, we simply emphasize different cultural and religious symbols and principles in our branding.  I am just trying to figure out why you set up that bait.  It was clearly intentional.

1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

I recognize that no one can know God - at least in a full sense - in this life. I was simply trying to offer perspective for why mainstream Christians are so adamant about the triune god and belief in it. To them, we are not even touching the elephant. We are touching a horse off to the side. The very nature of our God's is vastly different. Whereas me and you might touch different parts of the elephant in understanding the character, emotion, etc of God, someone touching a cat could not claim to also be touching the elephant. For the Christians, you have to at least be touching the elephant to be saved. They don't believe we are. Just trying to pitch in to the original question. 

I think you are right, that many do see it the way you describe, which is unfortunately just based in ignorance and lacks reason considering that we are interpreting the same elephant (Christ) from the same source (Bible) - we simply interpret Him differently.  The ones who know what they are talking about base our condemnation on the more historically rooted heresy theology of the Arian controversy, to be honest. 

We are interpreting the same picture of the elephant from the same Bible, but just have a different Christology.  It warms my heart to see that things are changing and Latter-day Saints are more and more being embraced by Evangelicals as Christians as Navidad and others exemplify.  And if Navidad is correct, it is more the fundamentalist evangelicals that primarily have issue with us and our Christology.   

Edited September 2, 2021 by pogi

[Eph2,8]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't find it disheartening, we simply emphasize different cultural and religious symbols and principles in our branding.  I am just trying to figure out why you set up that bait.  It was clearly intentional.

I served my mission in some of the most densely Christian cities in the U.S. I grew a great love for Mainstream Christians. I suppose it might be my way of paying homage to them. I also grew a great love for the cross as a symbol. Personally, I think we downplay the cross in an attempt to not seem too protestant or catholic. John Hilton iii (a religion professor at BYU) has done some amazing work researching and writing about Latter-day Saints' possibly fallacious relationship with the cross. If you ever want some fascinating reads, look him up! As far as the scripture, not sure how that is bait. It's a true scripture, and one that means a lot to me. 

I still don't exactly understand why I'm being accused of "baiting", but oh well.