Jason_J

Not according to the Trinity doctrine, as already explained in this thread. This is why your arguments against Trinitarianism aren't working. And furthermore, if this was true for Trinitarians, then since they believe that the Three are "One Being", then if being=person, they would thus be saying that the Three are "One Person". But you've already stated that that's not how you understand the Trinity (as "one Person"). No, you haven't addressed it because you're coming from the premise that "being=person". That's how we use it in English, however the Trinity doctrine was formulated over 1000 years ago, in Greek and Latin, and does not use that equivalence. Modalism teaches that they're one person, Trinitarianism teaches that they are three distinct Persons. The "three distinct persons" part is why your argument that the Trinity teaches that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost doesn't work (and it doesn't "separate the Trinity" to assert that Jesus is the Son of only the Father, since the Trinity teaches that they are distinct persons), and you haven't addressed that. If you have, please cite the post in which you did. The error of Modalism is therefore not saying that they are "one being", since Trinitarians believe that. It is that they say that they are "one person". This only makes sense if we understand that these groups are not saying that "being=person", as you said above. Links Showing that Trinitarians Do not Use "Being=Person" Equivalence in the Doctrine Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Understanding The Trinity A Brief Definition of the Trinity

Dahlia, somewhat random, but I was reading/stalking your older posts (haha), and noticed that you are black. So am I, and I just wanted to say its great to find another black [former] Catholic here. :)

Sure, LDSChristian is affirming that the Trinity teaches that the one God is three Persons, however he is showing that he doesn't understand what that means by saying things like this means that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost, or that Modalism is the belief that the Three are One Being (when it is really that they are "One person"), or when he argues against the phrase "one God", when the Book of Mormon says that they are "one God" too. The problem here is that when people explain logically why his arguments are wrong or straw men, he doesn't address those arguments, but instead resorts to name-calling and just repeating himself.

No, I have not said that at all (if I have, cite the post please). I know full well what you believe. See, this is why others keep saying that you are confused on what we're talking about. The statement of yours that I put in bold is wrong. Modalism does not teach that they are "one being". It teaches that they are one Person, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mere manifestations or "masks" of that one Person. A modalist would believe that Jesus is the Son of Himself, since the Father and the Son are just masks or "roles" that God takes on depending on the situation. This is why we have repeatedly told you that your arguments are not against Trinitarianism, but Modalism. Address that please. And I will say this again and again and again until you get this: We know that you didn't say that the Trinity teaches that they are one Person. What we do know is that your arguments imply that that is how you are arguing against it, as if they were one Person. This is very simple: to say that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to say that the Father and the Son are the same Person. You have already stated, in multiple posts, that the Trinity is saying that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost. That only makes sense if one thinks that they are the same Person. So, for you to claim that the Trinity results in the belief that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to imply that you think the Trinity is saying they are one Person. The fact that you can't address this argument shows that all the other people in the thread are correct, and you are not allowing yourself to accept that you are wrong, and those of us that have researched this issue extensively (and some have studied it formally in courses) is interesting. Wonderful. That is not what we are discussing however. As already stated, you aren't getting that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons. I have already quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official compendium of the beliefs of the largest Trinitarian church in the world, that shows this belief. You have said that a Trinitarian saying that Jesus is the Son of only the Father would "break up" the Trinity, however the fact that the belief in distinct Persons is essential to the Trinity doctrine shows why that is false. Again, to say that the Trinity implies or results in the belief that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to show that you really don't understand what the Trinity doctrine actually is.

I'm interested in this. Could you expand more? I'm sure that you're aware that traditional Christians don't believe in a "Melchizedek priesthood", or, if they do, they believe that only Jesus Christ and Melchizedek held that priesthood. Those that do believe in a ministerial priesthood, such as Catholics and Orthodox, still believe that as well. Could you expand more on the relationship between the Melchizedek Priesthood and the primitive church? Thanks.

Actually you aren't. You assert this, but you do not demonstrate it. Perhaps you are confused about what we're referring to. We aren't talking about your personal LDS beliefs about the Godhead. We are saying that your portrayal of Trinitarianism is wrong because you are describing the Trinity doctrine as Modalism, and not the Trinity. You have yet to address the issue of Modalism and how it is different from Trinitarianism. If you can do that, then you'll see why everyone else in this thread, people that have extensively researched and discussed this issue, sees that you are misrepresenting the Trinity. It is okay to be wrong. Again, we're talking about how you present the Trinity. I have already demonstrated multiple times why your argument about the Trinity would only make sense if the Trinity taught that they are one Person. You imply that you think that the Trinity doctrine states they are one Person, as I have already demonstrated. You have not addressed those arguments. Yes, Son of God means Son of God the Father. The post of yours that I was responding to was ambiguous and seemed to say to me that the phrase "Son of God" was referring to God the Father. I see that is not what you meant, and were saying that the word "God" in the phrase "Son of God" refers to God the Father. You agree with Trinitarians. We clearly get that you believe that they are distinct Persons. The problem here is that you are not understanding that Trinitarians believe that they are distinct Persons too. The Catholic Church has a document called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which documents all of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. This paragraph shows that, in accordance with the Trinity doctrine, they believe that the Three are distinct Persons. The problem again is that your arguments show that you do not understand this fact of the Trinity, and why your arguments against the Trinity do not work, and instead argue against Modalism. No, that is not what the Trinity says, and we have gone over this before, but you ignore it. To Trinitarians, "God" in that phrase refers only to the Father. The Trinity says that they are distinct Persons. If they are distinct Persons, then you can "separate" them in the sense that "God" can refer to any of them individually, or all of them collectively. Therefore, your sentence above is false and does not represent the Trinity. Then why are you saying that Trinitarians believe that Christ is the Son of God the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost? That only makes sense if Trinitarians believe that the 3 are one Person. That only makes sense if the Trinity is really Modalism. Again, since they are distinct Persons, as Trinitarians believe, Trinitarians can confidently say that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of Himself. Yes, they are "one God". As already stated, the Book of Mormon says as much. As I mentioned, your post was ambiguous and seemed to say to me that "Son of God" referred to God the Father. I agree that the word "God" refers to the Father. What I thought you were saying was that the whole phrase "Son of God" referred to the Father. We both agree that that is wrong and that "God" means the Father in this case. No it doesn't, because the Trinity accepts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons. Since this fact is part of the doctrine, there is no breaking up of the Trinity concept, since it is defined as a belief in 3 distinct Persons. This is what multiple people have shown over and over, which is why we find your presentation of arguments against the Trinity erroneous. And we are saying that your arguments imply that that is what you believe the Trinity is saying. We have shown why we infer this from your arguments, and also why they miss the fundamental belief of Trinitarians that the Three are distinct from each other, and why "God" can refer to all 3 or each one individually. Yes, God=the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, "God" can also refer to each individually. John 1:1 shows why this is true. Firstly, the Book of Mormon clearly states that the 3 are "one God". Do you deny this? Secondly, I agree that "one God" does not mean that they are one Person, however it is by your arguments that you portray the Trinity as believing that. We have shown this. Just to make myself clear definitively: The Trinity doctrine is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons who are one in essence/being/nature, one God. Saying that they are "one God" or "one in essence/being" does not mean that they are physically attached to each other, or that they are one Person. Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus prayed to Himself. Such a question would best be asked of Unitarians or Modalists, who are not Trinitarians. Trinitarians believe that the word "God" can refer to the Three Persons collectively, as "the Trinity", or, it can refer to each Person individually. We see in John 1:1 that the Word (Jesus) is "God", for example. So, when a Trinitarians says that they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in this context, "God" is referring to the Father only. This does not "break up" the Trinity because the Trinity, by definition includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other. Hence, for someone to claim that the Trinity is saying that the Son of God to a Trinitarian means that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost, is to not understand what the Trinity is defined as. Jesus can be Son of God the Father without being Son of Himself in the Trinity doctrine since the Father is distinct from the Son. The Book of Mormon includes the phrase "one God" in reference to the 3 in a few places (Mormon 7:7, Mosiah 15:3-4, Alma 11:44 etc), so the dispute is not with the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one single God. The dispute is in what that means.

Thank you. Also, I'm not arguing whether Trinitarianism is true or false either. We and others are merely arguing for the accurate portrayal of what the Trinity doctrine means. Otherwise, trust me, Trinitarians will be amused at another person confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism. It's best to argue against what the belief actually is, and not a straw man construct.

No one is saying anything about your feelings. What we are talking about is your understanding of the Trinity doctrine. Multiple people have shown why you are confusing the Trinity doctrine with Modalism. Yes, they are a "single God", but "single God" does not mean "single Person", which is what you are implying by your arguments. This is what people (including LDS) have been trying to show you. Don't, you, as an LDS, believe that they are "one God"? Sure, you don't agree with the Trinitarian definition, however you still believe that they are "one God" in some way. The Book of Mormon says so. God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God [the Father], and He is also God (John 1:1). However they are not the same Person. They are distinct Persons, as the Trinity doctrine clearly states. The Book of Mormon says as much. Perhaps you should be clear that you are not disputing the phrase "one God", but what that phrase means. No, "Son of God" does not mean 'God the Father". "Son of God" refers to Jesus Christ. Since the Trinity doctrine clearly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, who are thus not each other, your argument does not work. Also, as I have already stated, no one is claiming or implying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost. He is only the Son of God the Father. As I have showed, and you posted above, the word "God" can refer to either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or all three of them. In the case of "Son of God", "God" is referring to the Father only. Their being "one God" does not mean that they are one Person, since the Trinity doctrine states that they are three distinct Persons, so your argument that someone is claiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of Himself does not work, unless we are talking about Modalism, which is not Trinitarianism.

No, they did not address the post that you were responding to, which was on why the Trinity does not imply or say that Jesus is the Son of Himself. Those links do not address that. Great, then you agree with Trinitarians on something. When you stated-"If all 3 were ONE single God then you would have to say Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself." in this post, you were implying that the Trinity is teaching or implying that the Father and the Son are the same Person, otherwise the statement that "Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself" doesn't follow. I have already demonstrated why such a statement is false and not representative of the Trinity. It is representative of Modalism, and issue that you have not addressed yet. Such a statement does not add to the discussion.

Ah, that wasn't clear from your original post. I'm curious as to the source for the claim that there was an institutional decision by the Catholic Church to not remove ministers that were in sin and are unrepentant. This isn't clear from the wikipedia article. The reason why Donatism was declared a heresy is because, as we see in the article, it claimed that sacraments performed by a minister in sin are invalid. From the article: "Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults." So, one couldn't really be sure whether they were receiving valid sacraments/ordinances, since how would they know if the minister was in a state of sin? The article doesn't address the issue of excommunicating unrepentant ministers or relieving them from their duties. The Catholic Church of course has a long standing tradition of laicizing ministers and/or excommunicating those who commit serious sins and are unrepentant.

Sorry, it's clear from the arguments you present that you are confusing the Trinity with Modalism. Multiple people (including other LDS) have stated the same thing, and my post showed why your argument that Trinitarians saying that Jesus is the Son of God means that He is the Son of Himself is a misrepresentation of what the Trinity doctrine actually states/implies, and you have not yet addressed my argument.

Hi bytebear, Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have owned that book for about a year now, and actually provided a brief review of it on this forum a year ago, found here. I have been reading it again lately, as I agree that it is helpful, though, as you can tell from my review, I have some issues with parts of it. Thanks again :)

I would also expand that to include the oft-forgotten (though the second largest Christian church!) Orthodox Church. While the Catholic Church sees them as being in schism, the CC still teaches that they have a valid priesthood and thus valid sacraments (while I have issues with the logic of that belief, this is what my church teaches:huh: ). Yes, the Catholic claim is that all of her bishops are successors of the apostles, with the bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the successor specifically of Peter. I've actually never seen this chart in a Catholic parish or cathedral...Perhaps its in an office or something, but I know what you're referring to (I've seen it online). I'd be interested in a few items from the list, if you don't mind! :)

Okay thanks, that's good to know. 3 years...yeah I can understand why. It's been almost that long for me, on and off. How long did you study with the missionaries before you were baptized, if you don't mind me asking. It's always good to hear from former knowledgeable, practicing Catholics on this (I believe I had a thread awhile back on this), which is also why I'm rereading "Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest", though I still have some issues with parts of that book, as found in my thread in the Books sub-forum.

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament. In your opinion, what are the ways in which the LDS Church is like the New Testament Church, thus strengthening its claim to be a restoration of the primitive church? This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to organizational structure, though obviously it can include it.

Also LDSChristian, I would be interested in your response to this post of mine, which shows that unfortunately, your arguments are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what the Trinity doctrine is stating (you confuse it with Modalism and Unitarianism), as others (including practicing LDS) have also noted.

These links don't address my post that you quoted in your response, namely the fact that Trinitarians have no problem with Ephesians 1:3 since Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are not each other, and that Jesus is the Son of God while also being God (but not God the Father).

Thanks, yes, this is an important issue for Catholics (and perhaps everyone). The premise is basically that the sacraments are efficacious "ex opere operato", meaning that by doing the actions of the sacrament (obviously by an ordained minister in ordinary circumstances), the sacrament has its desired effect. The point is that Christ is ultimately the minister of all of the sacraments. I tend to find such a position makes sense. For example, if I am going to be baptized, if the minister is in a state of sin, would the baptism still be valid? How do LDS view this? Also, its important to note this from the wiki article-"Although such a sacrament would be valid, and the grace effective, it is nonetheless sinful for any priest to celebrate a sacrament while himself in a state of sin.". The question ultimately is, how can I be sure that I am really receiving valid, efficacious sacraments/ordinances if they depend on the faith of the minister to make them efficacious? What about a situation where I participated in an ordinance where the minister was in a state of sin and was not being faithful, did I not receive the ordinance? I hope that sheds some light on why Catholicism has that position, and I'd be interested in hearing how LDS view it as well :).

No, this is not problematic for Trinitarians. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and thus the Father is the God of Christ. No Trinitarian disputes that. The largest Trinitarian church, the Catholic Church, quotes Ephesians 1:3 in paragraph 1077 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ does not detract from the fact that the Bible also affirms that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1).

Yeah, that article and the comments are very off-putting. I hope it's all just satire.

Ephesians 1:3 is not problematic for Trinitarians. God the Father is distinct from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also God, as we see in John 1:1. However He is not God the Father.

Also, we must remember that Trinitarians don't use the words "being" and "person" interchangeably, as we might do in everyday language. So, it would be incorrect to say that there are three beings that are one being. It would be correct, as prisonchaplain stated, to say that there are three persons that are one being.

Yes, this is very important. And when scriptural verses are cited as evidence of an Apostasy of the Christian Church, we must remember that we're not talking about individual apostasies or even large percentages of people apostatizing. The LDS claim is about an Apostasy of the church. This is why many of the verses cited aren't that convincing for me, since they tend to deal with the former, not the latter.

No, this is incorrect from a Trinitarian standpoint. It is more like this: Jesus Christ=Son of God God=Father God=Son God=Holy Ghost God=Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Ghost All three are distinct Persons, where the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. So, what the word "God" means depends on the context that it is being used. When Trinitarians state that Jesus is the Son of God, "God" here is not being used to refer to the Trinity as a whole, but to refer specifically to God the Father. No, because from a Trinitarian standpoint, the "they are one God" concept includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, not one Person. This is the problem with your interpretation of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not the Son of Himself because the Father is not the Son. They are one God, but not one Person. This is an important difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism and Unitarianism.

Hi all, Well it's been about a year now since I first seriously considered converting to the LDS Church from the Catholic Church. Throughout this year, I've had times where I was SO sure that I would be contacting the missionaries, and SO sure that the LDS faith really was the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as times where I would be drawn back to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy (since the Orthodox Church resolves some of the issues I have with Catholicism). So here is where I stand right now: I find much Biblical and historical support for the LDS beliefs in pre-mortal existence, continuing revelation, open canon, the simple Godhead, having apostles and prophets, baptism for the dead, the LDS interpretation of the Fall (as well as the simple fact of how could Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply when they didn't know that they were nude), the belief that spirit is still matter, fasting (and not just abstaining from certain things). I also love the community, the emphasis on scripture and doctrinal study for ALL ages. I am also intrigued by the various supports for the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, as well as historical evidences for LDS beliefs. On the other hand, I still am somewhat troubled by plural marriage, not the concept itself, but understanding it in relation to the New Testament, such as verses that say that a bishop or deacon should be the husband of one wife (in 1 Timothy somewhere), etc. Also Brigham Young and Adam/God, which if I remember correctly he spoke on at a General Conference. I'm trying to understand this in the context of "the prophet will never lead us astray". Also, the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is somewhat of an issue. While I don't necessarily firmly believe that this happens, I can understand how the Bible can be interpreted to support such a belief, and I find it interesting in parallel to the Old Testament temple, where God was present in the temple in a special way, in comparison to the Catholic belief that God is present in Catholic churches in a special way as well. Perhaps LDS have a similar belief as far as their own temples? So, right now I'm reading the Book of Mormon (I'm in 2 Nephi) and praying about it. I've filled out the Missionary Request form on mormon.org, but haven't submitted it yet . While there's much I love about the LDS Church, and much that makes sense, the above are still troubling me, and I guess are keeping me back from actually meeting with missionaries. Any thoughts are welcome!