The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The only reason we believe she was a virgin is because she stated it.

Are you forgetting Nephi?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/11.13,15,18,20?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you forgetting Nephi?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/11.13,15,18,20?

Do you really think Nephi had the details about Mary's sexual status?

And you know as well as I do that virginal doesn't always refer to sexual experience.

https://www.komaberribat.com/en/young-mary-vs-virgin-mary-a-mistranslation-of-epic-proportions/

"The Hebrew word for virgin is “bethulah” and cannot be found anywhere in the original Hebrew text, meaning that the original writer did not intend for it to be read as “virgin” but as “young” girl."

Edited January 26, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, James 1 5 said:

I have had many personal conversations with other non LDS Christians to know we don't think the same way on this issue.  If you personally DO believe as we do on this  issue, then I would be glad to know you believe it.

I didn't say I believe as you do, or that we think the same way on this issue. I am saying that you may not understand what the overwhelming majority of non-LDS Christians teach and believe - one Godhead in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - coequal and  coeternal. 

What I do believe is that my LDS Christian friends are just that - Christians -fully and completely. In the same way that my non-LDS Christian friends are Christians - fully and completely. Neither group needs the help of, nor needs to become the other. It isn't necessary to adequately or accurately comprehend the Godhead to be completely a Christian.

Not believing in the trinity doesn't keep someone from being a Christian. Believing in the trinity makes someone a trinitarian, not necessarily a Christian.

Let's make a deal! I won't tell you what LDS Christians believe if you don't tell me what non-LDS Christians believe! OK? Stay on this forum long enough and you will begin to appreciate the wide diversity in both groups!  That is also why there such a wideness in God's mercy! Thanks, take care, and again, welcome.

[James 1 5]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

I didn't say I believe as you do, or that we think the same way on this issue. I am saying that you may not understand what the overwhelming majority of non-LDS Christians teach and believe - one Godhead in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - coequal and  coeternal. 

What I do believe is that my LDS Christian friends are just that - Christians -fully and completely. In the same way that my non-LDS Christian friends are Christians - fully and completely. Neither group needs the help of, nor needs to become the other. It isn't necessary to adequately or accurately comprehend the Godhead to be completely a Christian.

Not believing in the trinity doesn't keep someone from being a Christian. Believing in the trinity makes someone a trinitarian, not necessarily a Christian.

Let's make a deal! I won't tell you what LDS Christians believe if you don't tell me what non-LDS Christians believe! OK? Stay on this forum long enough and you will begin to appreciate the wide diversity in both groups!  That is also why there such a wideness in God's mercy! Thanks, take care, and again, welcome.

Thank you for extending your welcome of me to this board.  I don't intend to ruffle any feathers when I share what I believe, including when I talk about what I believe other people believe.  And I'm not expecting to agree with others.  I think it's nice when other people agree with me, but I would still believe what I believe what God has taught me, or what I believe God has taught me, even if nobody else agreed with me.  And I would expect others to have the same degree of certainty about what they believe God has taught them, if they believe God has taught them anything.  Otherwise we're only sharing our own opinions without any sense of certainty that God has taught us something.  I believe we are capable of forming our own opinions without any input from God, because we have our own mind and our own brain and we can use them even if we do not open ourselves to God's influence.

To get back to the topic and what we were discussing, I think I do understand the uniqueness of our belief regarding the nature of God.  If the overwhelming majority of non-LDS Christians agreed with our belief regarding the nature of God then they would not disagree with us about this as much as they do.  Very few if any non-LDS  Christians believe the persons who are God are actual persons, in the same sense that all men and women are persons.  They mean something more like one person with 3 distinct personalities, with none that begat another.  None a literal Father, and none a literal Son.  They use those terms figuratively, not like we LDS think of a Father and Son.  What I am saying is based on my personal communications with other non-LDS Christians, including books and articles and other forms of text messages I have read that were written by them, non-LDS Christians. When the say they are persons they have some idea other than the usual idea of what a person is.  So based on that, on what I understand they really believe despite the words they use which are misleading, I say they really do not believe the persons who are God are literally persons. The actual ideas and beliefs are what really matter to me, regardless of which words are used.

[InCognitus]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you really think Nephi had the details about Mary's sexual status?

And you know as well as I do that virginal doesn't always refer to sexual experience.

https://www.komaberribat.com/en/young-mary-vs-virgin-mary-a-mistranslation-of-epic-proportions/

"The Hebrew word for virgin is “bethulah” and cannot be found anywhere in the original Hebrew text, meaning that the original writer did not intend for it to be read as “virgin” but as “young” girl."

They had details about the manner of the conception, which was "by the power of the Holy Ghost":

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."  (Alma 7:10)

After the miraculous conception, the process of birth was as natural as any other.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

They had details about the manner of the conception, which was "by the power of the Holy Ghost":

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."  (Alma 7:10)

So somehow the spirit body of the Holy Ghost impregnated a virgin but it was actually Heavenly Father that was the Father.
I think we are leaning into Eve made from a rib territory here.

[James 1 5]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So somehow the spirit body of the Holy Ghost impregnated a virgin but it was actually Heavenly Father that was the Father.
I think we are leaning into Eve made from a rib territory here.

I think I understand this a little bit.  The power of the Holy Ghost sometimes refers to a particular degree of power which the Holy Ghost has, which others can also have.   Angels, which are other divine messengers, often speak with the power of the Holy Ghost, or as much power as the Holy Ghost has when he speaks.  So the fact that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost doesn't mean the Holy Ghost begat him. Only that Mary conceived Jesus by that degree of power.  The Holy Ghost is a spirit, just as Jesus was a spirit before our Father begat him through Mary, so I tend to think of the power of the Holy Ghost as as much power as a spirit can have before being resurrected.  Maybe the ultimate degree of spirit power, before resurrection.

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So somehow the spirit body of the Holy Ghost impregnated a virgin but it was actually Heavenly Father that was the Father.

No, you are misinterpreting what Alma 7:10 says.  It doesn't say anything about "the spirit body of the Holy Ghost" impregnating a virgin, it says the conception was by the "power" of the Holy Ghost. 

Holy men of God and angels speak the words of the Father "by the power of the Holy Ghost".   We can know the truth of all things "by the power of the Holy Ghost".  The Holy Ghost is the means of transmission.  There's no need to read into the verse that Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost (that's the very thing that Brigham Young was preaching against).  Jesus is the Son of God, the Father, not the Son of the Holy Ghost.

And James 1 5 just posted almost exactly the same thing I was typing about "the power of the Holy Ghost" (I had to stop and take out the garbage ), :

40 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

I think I understand this a little bit.  The power of the Holy Ghost sometimes refers to a particular degree of power which the Holy Ghost has, which others can also have.   Angels, which are other divine messengers, often speak with the power of the Holy Ghost, or as much power as the Holy Ghost has when he speaks.  So the fact that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost doesn't mean the Holy Ghost begat him. Only that Mary conceived Jesus by that degree of power.  The Holy Ghost is a spirit, just as Jesus was a spirit before our Father begat him through Mary, so I tend to think of the power of the Holy Ghost as as much power as a spirit can have before being resurrected.  Maybe the ultimate degree of spirit power, before resurrection.

 

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we are leaning into Eve made from a rib territory here.

Now you're mixing genres of scripture.  Comparing the New Testament narratives and the Alma 7 prophetic statements of the same events to the Genesis stories is not a valid comparison at all.  That's kind of like people saying that the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible can't possibly be inferring that God has a body because the Bible also says that God has "wings" in poetic references, like the Psalms.  Apples and oranges.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

No, you are misinterpreting what Alma 7:10 says.  It doesn't say anything about "the spirit body of the Holy Ghost" impregnating a virgin, it says the conception was by the "power" of the Holy Ghost. 

Holy men of God and angels speak the words of the Father "by the power of the Holy Ghost".   We can know the truth of all things "by the power of the Holy Ghost".  The Holy Ghost is the means of transmission.  There's no need to read into the verse that Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost (that's the very thing that Brigham Young was preaching against).  Jesus is the Son of God, the Father, not the Son of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge - Joseph Smith

When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. - Brigham Young

I then asked him a few questions with regard to the coming forth of the Son of Man, as he is called in a few places. “Do you believe that he was born of the virgin Mary?—that he was the son of Mary?” “Yes.” “Do you believe that the Apostle told the truth when he said that he was begotten by the Father?” “Yes.” “Why do you dispute it, then, or throw a doubt upon it? Was he not flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, if the history given of him is true?” “O yes.” “Whom did he look and act like? And whose errand did he come to do?” I then turned and read—“Whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father,” and inquired, “Do you believe that?” - Brigham Young

"There is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." - Brigham Young

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge - Joseph Smith

If your point in quoting this is to say that this is the only role of the Holy Ghost, then you are again taking Joseph Smith out of context.  Observe the full text:

Quote

There are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of  the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.  (History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842])

Clearly Joseph had much more in mind about the effects of the Holy Ghost than what you implied in the portion you quoted, and his remarks were made in application to a specific situation as the context shows.

And surely, Joseph was not discounting other purposes of the power of the Holy Ghost that we find in scripture, for we also know that it is by the means of the Holy Ghost that we become sanctified (3 Nephi 27:20), and are cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost (Moroni 6:4).

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. - Brigham Young

This is exactly one of the sermons I had in mind when I said Brigham Young was teaching that Jesus is the Son of God the Father and not the Son of the Holy Ghost.  Note the difference between "begotten by the Holy Ghost", and "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost" .   In the same sermon he related an "anecdote" that makes this clear:

Quote

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told.  Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.  I will repeat a little anecdote.  I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea--"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

In other words, Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost, he is the Son of God.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I then asked him a few questions with regard to the coming forth of the Son of Man, as he is called in a few places. “Do you believe that he was born of the virgin Mary?—that he was the son of Mary?” “Yes.” “Do you believe that the Apostle told the truth when he said that he was begotten by the Father?” “Yes.” “Why do you dispute it, then, or throw a doubt upon it? Was he not flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, if the history given of him is true?” “O yes.” “Whom did he look and act like? And whose errand did he come to do?” I then turned and read—“Whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father,” and inquired, “Do you believe that?” - Brigham Young

This is just making it clear that Jesus is the genetic Son of the Father, and I already explained that the genetic and divine relationship of the Father and Son are quite possible without Mary losing her virginity (since the conception took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost").

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"There is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." - Brigham Young

The birth of Jesus was as natural as are other births, and was the result of a natural action:  The formation of the zygote, the embryo, the fetus that grew into the infant Jesus who was born of Mary.  Mary conceived and carried Jesus for the normal nine month gestation, and birthed Him as other mothers have done since the beginning of time (i.e. Jesus didn’t just miraculously appear in his mother's arms as an infant boy).  Thus, Mary is literally his mother, and God the Father is literally his Father.  There is nothing figurative about this.   This, however, doesn't discount the scripture which states that the conception was "by the power of the Holy Ghost". 

Obviously there has been a lot of speculation on this topic, and it remains speculation.  It's possible that for Brigham Young, there was only one way he could imagine that Jesus could be the genetic Son of God, which was the only way that could happen in that day and age.  But there are also some very clear statements from other church leaders that affirm the virgin birth, as I'm sure you know.

[theplains]

On 1/25/2022 at 7:03 PM, James 1 5 said:

I understand that to mean you believe Jesus and his Father are the same personage.  That one did not father the other.  That you don't believe Jesus is literally a son of his Father.  You think the terms father and son are only figurative, not literal, expressions.

They are not the same person.  The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Where I disagree
is with the LDS teaching Jesus is a spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father who then became a God.

[theplains]

On 1/25/2022 at 6:11 PM, JLHPROF said:

That's an assumption.  Virgin isn't always literal in scripture.

The Book of Mormon mentions that Nephi saw the Virgin Mary with a child in her arms.

What does "virgin" mean in that sense?

[theplains]

On 1/25/2022 at 6:11 PM, James 1 5 said:

The issue here is about knowing what a father is, and what a son is.  A son in some sense is his father because that father reproduced himself when creating his son. But people always think of the reproduction process that way.  Even though it is true.

The belief of a literal interaction between Heavenly Father and Mary to produce Jesus is found in this
teaching:

“The condescension of God, of which the scriptures speak, means that the Immortal Father - the glorified,
exalted, enthroned ruler of the universe - came down from his station of dominion and power to become
the Father of a Son who would be born of Mary, after the manner of the flesh” (Bruce R. McConkie, A New
Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1985, Ensign, December 2001, "The Condescension
of God.")

[theplains]

On 1/25/2022 at 5:01 PM, InCognitus said:

Except it wasn't a physical relationship, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.  So how is that not "miraculous"? 

“The condescension of God, of which the scriptures speak, means that the Immortal Father - the glorified,
exalted, enthroned ruler of the universe - came down from his station of dominion and power to become
the Father of a Son who would be born of Mary, after the manner of the flesh” (Bruce R. McConkie, A New
Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1985, Ensign, December 2001, "The Condescension
of God").

 

Quote

So God literally becoming man, but not really his son.  Can you explain how that makes him a "literal Son
of God"?   And how is that different than becoming "sons of God" (figuratively speaking), like it is described for
believers in Jesus Christ, in John 1:12?

I believe Jesus always existed as God and in a sense the only begotten (not created) of the Father.  How is that
possible?  I don't know.  Is he the first spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father who became a God in the
premortal existence.  I don't believe this.

"Becoming sons of God" is by adoption.  As Romans 8 says:

"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back
into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself
bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs
with Christ."

From what I have read of LDS manuals, the sons of God are *joint-heirs* with Christ (which is a euphemism for
eternal life; i.e. exaltation).

Edited February 1, 2022 by theplains

[theplains]

On 1/25/2022 at 3:52 PM, CV75 said:

I don't understand. Did not Heavenly Father cause the conception and subsequent birth of Jesus, and is this not miraculous?

Somehow Jesus was conceived with a miraculous conception. I do not believe Heavenly Father "came
down from his station of dominion and power to become the Father of a Son who would be born of
Mary, ‘after the manner of the flesh.’” (December 2001 Ensign).
 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The Book of Mormon mentions that Nephi saw the Virgin Mary with a child in her arms.

What does "virgin" mean in that sense?

Virgin is often a poetic term for a young maiden or an unmarried girl.  It doesn't always have any connection to sex.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Somehow Jesus was conceived with a miraculous conception. I do not believe Heavenly Father "came
down from his station of dominion and power to become the Father of a Son who would be born of
Mary, ‘after the manner of the flesh.’” (December 2001 Ensign).
 

 

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Virgin is often a poetic term for a young maiden or an unmarried girl.  It doesn't always have any connection to sex.

In fact, let's look at the use of the word virgin to describe Mary.  It all comes from a single verse in Isaiah.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
The Hebrew word Isaiah uses for virgin is used 3 other times in the Old Testament.  It is usually translated as maiden, maid, or girl.  Only in Isaiah did it get switched to the word from the french "virgine".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

And the New Testament use of "Parthenos" is used specifically when they translated from Isaiah 7, not as a new piece of information.

Basically, Isaiah said "maiden" or "young girl" and the Greek writer of Matthew translated it as "parthenos" 

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, without the original text it's hard to say if the French origin word being used in English is a match for the author's intent.  He may well have meant maiden.
It's an ongoing question.  And why we only believe scripture when it is translated correctly as per our Articles of Faith.

https://forward.com/articles/5221/virgin-legend/

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/25/2022 at 4:25 PM, James 1 5 said:

I think this is probably one of the biggest doctrinal issues that divides all of so-called Christianity.  The issue of whether there is only one God, or more than one God.

This confuses me. 99% of Christianity is Trinitarian, so this isn't the biggest doctrinal issue that divides Christianity. In fact, it is almost absurd to me that you are claiming that a main issue of Christianity is monotheism vs. polytheism. We've pretty much been settled on monotheism for 2000 years

[James 1 5]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This confuses me. 99% of Christianity is Trinitarian, so this isn't the biggest doctrinal issue that divides Christianity. In fact, it is almost absurd to me that you are claiming that a main issue of Christianity is monotheism vs. polytheism. We've pretty much been settled on monotheism for 2000 years

The concept of the Trinity doesn't make this any less confusing to many people.  We say one God with many persons who are that one God and many Christians call that polytheism while we say again no, we said only one God, so only monotheism.

It is confusing because of what some people think of a person who is called God.  Call 3 people God and some will say that is 3 Gods.  You might say it is one God and I would agree.  Whether 3 people are God or an infinite number of people are God, I would say that is only one God.  Many other people would not agree and think that is confusing.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This confuses me. 99% of Christianity is Trinitarian, so this isn't the biggest doctrinal issue that divides Christianity. In fact, it is almost absurd to me that you are claiming that a main issue of Christianity is monotheism vs. polytheism. We've pretty much been settled on monotheism for 2000 years

True.  What would you say is the biggest doctrinal dividing issue in Christianity today?
Perhaps whether or not we can fall from grace?

[James 1 5]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

They are not the same person.  The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Where I disagree
is with the LDS teaching Jesus is a spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father who then became a God.

Which part of the LDS teaching do you disagree with? 

Do you believe Jesus has a spirit? 

Do you believe the spirit of Jesus is the same kind of spirit as his Father's spirit? 

Do you believe Jesus is the same kind of being as his Father, God?

Do you believe God the Father begat Jesus as his spirit child, son?

Where do you think the spirit of Jesus came from if not from his Father?

Do you believe we also have the spirit of God our Father within us?

Do you know what kind of being you are?

Do you believe you have a Father in heaven?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

In fact, let's look at the use of the word virgin to describe Mary.  It all comes from a single verse in Isaiah.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
The Hebrew word Isaiah uses for virgin is used 3 other times in the Old Testament.  It is usually translated as maiden, maid, or girl.  Only in Isaiah did it get switched to the word from the french "virgine".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

And the New Testament use of "Parthenos" is used specifically when they translated from Isaiah 7, not as a new piece of information.

Basically, Isaiah said "maiden" or "young girl" and the Greek writer of Matthew translated it as "parthenos" 

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, without the original text it's hard to say if the French origin word being used in English is a match for the author's intent.  He may well have meant maiden.
It's an ongoing question.  And why we only believe scripture when it is translated correctly as per our Articles of Faith.

https://forward.com/articles/5221/virgin-legend/

 

By the word of Mary’s own testimony, at the time of the Annunciation she had not yet had sexual relations with a man. And in light of that most sacred thing that was about to happen to her, it seems unlikely in the extreme that Joseph and Mary would decide that was the right time to begin intimacy.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1)

 

[MiserereNobis]

25 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

The concept of the Trinity doesn't make this any less confusing to many people.  We say one God with many persons who are that one God and many Christians call that polytheism while we say again no, we said only one God, so only monotheism.

It is confusing because of what some people think of a person who is called God.  Call 3 people God and some will say that is 3 Gods.  You might say it is one God and I would agree.  Whether 3 people are God or an infinite number of people are God, I would say that is only one God.  Many other people would not agree and think that is confusing.

No, you said the biggest dividing issue in Christianity today is whether there is one God or more than one God. My response is that is absolutely not a dividing issue. At all. Christianity is monotheistic.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. But, like @The Nehor, I have an inkling why that is.

For others reading, I just want to reiterate that Trinitarianism claims that there is one God in three Persons. The Persons are not each other (so God the Father is not God the Son), but consubstantial, of the same essence or being, and that being is God.

[MiserereNobis]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.  What would you say is the biggest doctrinal dividing issue in Christianity today?
Perhaps whether or not we can fall from grace?

That's an issue in protestantism. I'm not sure how big it is, though, simply because I'm not well-versed as to what is going on in the protestant world.

In the Catholic world, there are still lingering issues over the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. This seems to be a big issue in the circles I run in, but that's because I'm a traditional Catholic. Perhaps in non-traditional Catholic circles, social issues may cause some divides (abortion, for example).

[T-Shirt]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

By the word of Mary’s own testimony, at the time of the Annunciation she had not yet had sexual relations with a man. And in light of that most sacred thing that was about to happen to her, it seems unlikely in the extreme that Joseph and Mary would decide that was the right time to begin intimacy.

Mary and Joseph weren't married yet when Jesus was born.  They were only betrothed, or engaged.