What's so hard to understand about the Trinity vs. the LDS Godhead?

[prisonchaplain]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

[LittleWyvern]

I think that if you believe in one, the other is difficult to understand simply because it is different and unfamiliar. It's like switching from Windows to a Mac (or the other way around if you're a Mac user)... there will be months of "wait... what?" moments before the new concept/paradigm is completely understood.

However, in this case, there's no motive to switch between the two options, so the confusion is perpetuated.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

I would be more then happy never to discuss peoples ideas of the Godhead, but the problem is people use the Trinity as one of the main arguments against the Restoration. So people that believe they are distinct persons joined in perfect unity of purpose as Elohim (plural) are forced to continually defend their beliefs.

[Maxel]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

I'll re-post something I said in the other thread here, as I believe it is relevant to this topic of conversation.

So, would it be fair to say that the LDS viewpoint about the nature of God is clearer and easier to understand, and that the Trinitarian viewpoint about the nature of God is less clear and difficult to understand the basics, while impossible to understand it fully? It seems to me that, if that is the case, then each viewpoint validates the theology of each religion: the LDS see God's Kingdom and the nature of God as making rational sense even from human perspective, and Trinitarians believe that God's Kingdom and the nature of God don't make rational sense from a human perspective.

I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be difficult to understand in its essence, but it is not easier, at any level, to understand than the doctrine of the LDS Godhead. Questions similar to 'Is God talking to himself when Jesus addresses the Father?' are not adequate examples of the hole in Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the Trinitarian doctrine only seems to run afoul of incorrectness if one is to believe that God is a rational, explainable phenomenon. That's always how I've looked at it, anyway.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll re-post something I said in the other thread here, as I believe it is relevant to this topic of conversation.

So, would it be fair to say that the LDS viewpoint about the nature of God is clearer and easier to understand, and that the Trinitarian viewpoint about the nature of God is less clear and difficult to understand the basics, while impossible to understand it fully?

Both views are relatively easy on the surface.

LDS Godhead = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we worship only the first one--since the other two work with him anyway, and he's got the authority.

Trinity = 1 X 1 X 1 = 1. Three distinct persons, but one God.

The LDS teaching is easier math, but when you throw in the idea of having one God, the complexity comes quickly.

The Trinity is easy to see and say, but quite difficult for us addition-bound beings to comprehend fully. It maintains monotheism by simply declaring that three persons are one essence.

In fact, the Trinitarian doctrine only seems to run afoul of incorrectness if one is to believe that God is a rational, explainable phenomenon. That's always how I've looked at it, anyway.

I would only tweek your mostly fair observation by saying that the Trinity does indeed betray our finite understanding, and that we capture only by forcing an apparent paradox (three persons, one God).

[Maxel]

I would be more then happy never to discuss peoples ideas of the Godhead, but the problem is people use the Trinity as one of the main arguments against the Restoration. So people that believe they are distinct persons joined in perfect unity of purpose as Elohim (plural) are forced to continually defend their beliefs.

As exampled by ErikJohnson's post about what defines a Christian. When approached from a strictly doctrinal point of view, the Nicean Trinity is a philosopher's dream- so complex that one could arrive at any conclusion with enough rearranging of logic and words, yet so relevant that the import of said conclusion affects the basis of an entire religion. If a person wanted to claim the right to be called a Christian and exclude others from that same privilege, the Nicean Trinity seems the perfect place to start.

(That's not a comment about the verity of the Trinity as doctrine, but rather about the philosophical complexity of it.)

This also brings something else to mind: what is so important about the nature of God? Why is it so important that we have a correct, if not basic, understanding of His being? That's something I'd like to hear about from a non-LDS Christian standpoint as well.

Personally, I think the nature of God is one of the most vital things we as human beings can learn because His nature reflects volumes of truth about Him, which in turn reflects volumes of truth about us. For example, to truly understand and appreciate the works of the great artists of the past, one must understand the artists' social circumstance and status, personality, philosophy, and more. As comprehension of said artist grows, appreciation and understanding of the artist's work grows.

PC's latest post seems to further justify this thinking. In LDS theology, we find many seeming paradoxes that arise naturally from the reality of things (free agency vs. predestination, for example) but no paradoxes in the nature of God. In Trinitarian doctrine, we see a paradox that must 'be forced' upon the nature of God to help finite mortals understand the nature of things on a higher plane of existence, eternally separated from our own.

The same thing applies to the nature of God, but in a way much more profound. Because we are His creations, understanding His nature helps us understand ourselves more.

For example: I see the nature of God in a much more organized, businesslike manner than non-LDS Christians (from my experience with other Christians). I see myself in but one stage of a life meant to progress far beyond my current comprehension. I see the family unit not only as a competent reflection of God's love, but as the best possible reflection of the power and nature of His love I can feel on this earth. I live my life according to the Gospel of Christ (as much as I can) in the hope that one day I will return to my Father in Heaven and that He will embrace me in His arms that He possesses as part of His physical body. I also hope that one day, in a time infinitely ahead of this singular moment, I will attain the kind of power and glory that the Father and the Son enjoy, and will be able to express that glorious love to my own spiritual offspring.

These are some of my deepest emotions and spiritual feelings, and they all derive, either in part or completely, from my understanding of the nature of God. If I were to honestly believe that God's nature was different than the LDS Godhead, my own spirit; my own personality and being; would be changed.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Maxel

[Maxel]

Both views are relatively easy on the surface.

LDS Godhead = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we worship only the first one--since the other two work with him anyway, and he's got the authority.

Trinity = 1 X 1 X 1 = 1. Three distinct persons, but one God.

I love your math. Beyond being concise and to the point, it helps root the doctrine in terms other than the purely philosophical, which is refreshing from time to time.

The Trinity is easy to see and say, but quite difficult for us addition-bound beings to comprehend fully. It maintains monotheism by simply declaring that three persons are one essence.

I've seen this defense a lot- that the doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at, in part, by a dire need to preserve monotheism in the religion (that's not what you're saying here, but I've read elsewhere that that was the case). I have no problem with monotheism (I describe myself as a monotheist, after all) but I am hesitant when an undue concern for one particular doctrine seems to trump all other factors. Was that a deciding factor when they cemented the final drafts of the Creed?

I would only tweek your mostly fair observation by saying that the Trinity does indeed betray our finite understanding, and that we capture only by forcing an apparent paradox (three persons, one God).

Thank you for the clarification. And, I was going for fairness. When matters of inter religious doctrinal discord arises, I try to approach with a completely open and unbiased mind. I'm glad I mostly succeeded. Edited January 30, 2009 by Maxel

[Maureen]

I doubt this will help but I like this old and simple explanation:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986). (Gregory Thaumaturgus - in his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

God has always existed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These persons have always had a relationship with each other. God is so Supreme, so Almighty, so Grand, so Divine, so Unique he must be seen as quite singular. There is no one else like God, therefore there is only One God. So accordingly there is one God and he exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This is how I see God.

M.

[Faded]

I've been trying for a lot of years to really and truly get the Trinity Doctrine. The best closest I have come is the picture I posted in the other thread.

Add the footnote, "there is only one God" and that pretty well covers it.

This is not my own contrived symbol. It's a visual that Trinitarians have used for centuries to help themselves and others understand the Trinity Doctrine. It's called the Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei. Shield of the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I bumped into it years ago and had to go look for a copy to share.

As a Latter Day Saint, the Trinity is especially hard to comprehend for me. That did not stop me from trying my very best to understand it. It is always my goal to understand the beliefs of others to the best of my ability. The Shield of the Trinity in its various forms provides the best visual representation of the Trinity concept. It is at least consoling that nobody I've ever met has an easy time with the Trinity Doctrine. It challenges the mind like few other things can. The Shield gives the basic understanding. Analysis beyond that gets very hard, very fast. Athanasius himself, the great champion of the Trinity Doctrine, admitted that the harder he tried to understand the Trinity the more confused he found himself.

I was looking forward to the promised explanation where the Trinity is "easy to understand." I do feel a tad disappointed. I have the concept down fairly well, but its anything but "easy to understand" for me. Thanks for trying PC.

[FunkyTown]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

This reminds me of a description I'd heard of the beginnings of the universe. Please bear with me as I write of Genesis through the eyes of a Physics major.

"Ten thousand years ago, the universe was without form and void. God decided he wanted a world. Thus, he created the universe. He wanted it to be old, so 144 hours later, billions of years had passed and the world and all life was created."

This description pleases him to no end. It doesn't challenge his faith, but rather affirms it. To many others, this description fills them with confusion and just feels 'wrong' and so they reject it when it's spelled out, despite this being exactly what many people believe without having thought about it.

So it is with the Trinity. Does its incomprehensibility mean it's wrong? No, I don't believe so. I do believe in the Prophets both ancient and modern, however, which means the question is answered for me. I also believe God when He wrote, "Would that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I will spit you forth from my mouth." and so I must defend it, but I understand and love those who disagree. I just think they're incorrect.

[Elgama]

I think what is so hard is the fact we are trying to understand something we will not truly understand in a mortal existence or plane. Whilst it seems so vital to me its one of the least important points of being LDS because ultimately God is what God is our attempts to describe God only change him in our minds

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

HE does...but then, HE calls HIS own and we need to learn, we cannot call ourselves.

If one sees the Godhead in its fullness, you will find three beings standing there before your own eyes. Now, I don't see why this is so complicated.

[Maureen]

I was looking forward to the promised explanation where the Trinity is "easy to understand." I do feel a tad disappointed. I have the concept down fairly well, but its anything but "easy to understand" for me. Thanks for trying PC.

IMO, I wouldn't say that the Trinity is easy to understand, but I think it is easy to explain. Understanding or accepting that explanation is another thing entirely.

[omega0401]

The doctrine of the Trinity is very difficult to understand when reading certain scriptures. Stephen, the first martyr of the early Church that we know of anyway, while he was being stoned said, “being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God , And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God ” (Acts 7:55-56). Yet people will read that and still believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are still one being.

I don’t believe that God wanted this doctrine to be this difficult to understand and I think this scripture (there are others) shows that. If God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are indeed one person why does the Bible confuse us further by having this scripture in there? The three are one in purpose and they represent the Godhood with our Heavenly Father as the one we worship but they are not one and the same person or physical being. I believe the scriptures are easier to understand the nature of God and the Godhead when thought of in this way.

Edited January 30, 2009 by omega0401

[prisonchaplain]

I've seen this defense a lot- that the doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at, in part, by a dire need to preserve monotheism in the religion (that's not what you're saying here, but I've read elsewhere that that was the case). I have no problem with monotheism (I describe myself as a monotheist, after all) but I am hesitant when an undue concern for one particular doctrine seems to trump all other factors. Was that a deciding factor when they cemented the final drafts of the Creed?

Yes, I'm sure that staying monotheist was a huge anchor in the early efforts to define God's nature. The most serious heresy in pentecostalism arose out of an even more fervent desire to do so--Oneness Pentecostals insist that God is one essence and one person--but three modes, or roles.

Interestingly, in my three years here I've seen a few LDS hold on to monotheism (Dr. Robinson, from the How Wide the Divide book, is a good example), but others embrace the middle ground of henotheism (many gods exist, but we worship only one), and some others simply say...yes we are ultimately polytheists, since we believe we will become Gods ourselves.

For the early church Christians, and for many of us today, monotheism is one of those few anchors that helps us feel theologically safe--particularly since, unlike your own church, in Protestantism there are differences of belief about important (though secondary) doctrines.

[prisonchaplain]

The doctrine of the Trinity is very difficult to understand when reading certain scriptures. Stephen, the first martyr of the early Church that we know of anyway, while he was being stoned said, “being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God , And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God ” (Acts 7:55-56). Yet people will read that and still believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are still one being.

"God in three persons, blessed Trinity." This from the hymn, Holy Holy Holy. Also, it's in the OP. We believe that the one true God is three persons. Again and again and again...Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, and it's not surprising to us at all that they interact with each other. The very scene you describe in Acts is a great passage demonstrating the Trinity. There they are...all three persons...the one God.

I don’t believe that God wanted this doctrine to be this difficult to understand and I think this scripture (there are others) shows that. If God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are indeed one person why does the Bible confuse us further by having this scripture in there? The three are one in purpose and they represent the Godhood with our Heavenly Father as the one we worship but they are not one and the same person or physical being. I believe the scriptures are easier to understand the nature of God and the Godhead when thought of in this way.

It is a mystery and a paradox how three persons can be one God. But, we believe this is so.

My question to you--how can you be monotheist if you say that there are three Gods--even if you only worship the Father (though many LDS would likely say they worship Jesus too)?

[LittleWyvern]

My question to you--how can you be monotheist if you say that there are three Gods--even if you only worship the Father (though many LDS would likely say they worship Jesus too)?

Monotheist is belief in one God, correct?

Well, we believe that the Holy Father is God, the Son is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. So, to us, there's only one God there.

[a-train]

Monotheist is belief in one God, correct?

Well, we believe that the Holy Father is God, the Son is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. So, to us, there's only one God there.

Jesus IS God. There are many verses which say so. The most prominent is the first page of the Book of Mormon which says plainly that the purpose of the Book of Mormon is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

What?!? The purpose of Mormonism is to convince people that Jesus is God?!?!?!? YES.

LDS persons have trouble with the Trinity for two reasons: first they don't understand Mormon theology, second they don't understand Modalism. Understanding the difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism is a huge help to Mormons. Most Mormons think Trinitarianism is Modalism. The Trinity is in fact much closer to LDS Theology than most Mormons think.

Mormons should not feel compelled to somehow confine their theology to any distinct definition of Monotheism, just as the Trinitarians don't. Within Trinitarian theology, there is a sense in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are plural and another in which they are singular. The same is true for Mormon theology.

Mormons who understand LDS teaching will quickly agree with Trinitarians that the Father is not the Son nor is He the Holy Ghost. They will also quickly agree that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. It is only the meaning of this oneness that is in question. Frankly, it is not required that a person come to any certain understanding of this definition to be baptized, or to accept Christ.

Much of the early Mormon preaching which contrasted Mormon theology with then pervading Christian beliefs would be out of place today. Commonly accepted Christian theology has in many ways changed since then. Orson Pratt spoke out against the theology of a god which is "neither here nor there", which has "neither height nor depth", which has "no body, parts, or passions". These theological definitions, while still sacred to some, are not the pervading Christian theology today.

Most Christians today believe in a physical resurrection of the Saviour and a bodily ascension to heaven. Trinitarians further acknowledge the Presence and manifestation of the Holy Ghost seperate from the Presence of the Son. The only limitation the Trinitarian theology would pose to a full acknowledgement of LDS theology is that it becomes by some rule impossible for the Father to have a body of flesh and bone seperate from the Son. Further, it is not believed that the Father and the Son have seperate histories.

Thus the difference has become much more subtle than most understand. However, when asked if the Father and Son are one, or if Jesus is God, Mormons commonly answer "NO", which is simply incorrect and which only continues a legacy of misunderstanding.

The LDS scriptures are unequivocal that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one and that they are God. The Father is God in both his status and species, as well is the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Also problematic is the term "God".

If it signifies a species, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God".

If it is a Pronoun, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God".

If it signifies status, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God".

Many LDS persons use "God" as a Pronoun referring directly to the Father. It is because of this sense that they say: "Jesus is not God". Bruce R. McConkie went into some detail about the Father's status being higher than the Son's. He appealed to that to justify a sense in which "God" could be exclusively applied to the Father. Through this sense it can be said that Mormons are strictly Monotheists, but that is only a technicality.

Monotheism to some denotes the singular existance of God in His species. In this definition, there can be no other being of the same species of God. To this, Mormons are completely opposed. Mormon teaching is plain that God and man are the same species. Upon his birth in Bethlehem, the Saviour did not change His species, He is, was, and always will be human. The Father also is human.

Although I cannot see how Trinitarianism explicitly indicates that God is not human, the notion is believed for the most part by Trinitarians as far as I can tell. Still, Trinitarians would doubtfully argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of distinct species. Indeed they are of the same species. Thus even Trinitarians acknowledge that there does exist a sense in which three distinct persons are of the species of God, and thus a plurality of that species exists. However, they maintain that this plurality cannot be so stated that it would in some way depart from a strict monotheist view. Many Muslims argue that Trinitarianism is not Monotheist enough for this reason.

Most Mormons have the difference between Trinitarianism and LDS theology overstated. This is our own fault. I hope that as we continue our vibrant history, we will better understand this issue.

-a-train

[omega0401]

My question to you--how can you be monotheist if you say that there are three Gods--even if you only worship the Father (though many LDS would likely say they worship Jesus too)?

We believe that there are three Gods but we worship God the Father, one God. I think of the three as a Presidency, God the Father as the President, Jesus Christ as the First Counselor, and the Holy Ghost as the Second Counselor. All three make up the Godhead but it is God the Father whom we worship.

The LDS do not worship Jesus Christ but believe Him to be the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer, without whom we could never return to live with our Father in Heaven. We do as he has taught us to do in the scripture to pray unto the Father in His name. It is the Father that we worship.

If you have found some LDS that worship Jesus Christ, it may be that they worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind but not as God the Father. We do not pray to Jesus but we pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ.

Edited January 31, 2009 by omega0401

[LittleWyvern]

Jesus IS God. There are many verses which say so. The most prominent is the first page of the Book of Mormon which says plainly that the purpose of the Book of Mormon is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

What?!? The purpose of Mormonism is to convince people that Jesus is God?!?!?!? YES.

Ah. I don't use Christ and God interchangeably, but I see your point. Thanks. :)

[Maxel]

Yes, I'm sure that staying monotheist was a huge anchor in the early efforts to define God's nature. The most serious heresy in pentecostalism arose out of an even more fervent desire to do so--Oneness Pentecostals insist that God is one essence and one person--but three modes, or roles.

That helps a lot- thanks!

Interestingly, in my three years here I've seen a few LDS hold on to monotheism (Dr. Robinson, from the How Wide the Divide book, is a good example), but others embrace the middle ground of henotheism (many gods exist, but we worship only one), and some others simply say...yes we are ultimately polytheists, since we believe we will become Gods ourselves.

I'm not surprised that different Mormons believe differently about mono/polytheism. Personally, I believe we're monotheists because we believe all the power that Christ and the Holy Ghost possess originated in, and is still supported by, the Father. Therefore, we come unto the Father through Christ, who is our mediator. It is in this way, I think, that we are able to maintain monotheism.

For the early church Christians, and for many of us today, monotheism is one of those few anchors that helps us feel theologically safe--particularly since, unlike your own church, in Protestantism there are differences of belief about important (though secondary) doctrines.

That makes sense; I never thought about it in that light before.

I do appreciate you making this post and helping us learn more about the Trinity!

[a-train]

The LDS do not worship Jesus Christ but believe Him to be the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer, without whom we could never return to live with our Father in Heaven. We do as he has taught us to do in the scripture to pray unto the Father in His name. It is the Father that we worship.

If you have found some LDS that worship Jesus Christ, it may be that they worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind but not as God the Father. We do not pray to Jesus but we pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ.

"And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out." (2 Nephi 25:29)

In our services we sing: "I believe in Christ- my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. I'll worship him with all my might; He is the source of truth and light." (I Believe in Christ, Hymn 134 third verse)

Worship is not exclusive to the Father according to Nephi or Bruce R. McConkie.

If you saw the PBS special: The Mormons, President Hinkley said plainly: "we worship Christ". This was quoted on the Church News Website.

To be frank, I am somewhat befuddled by the confusion among members. Conversely, it only makes sense that non-members question our beliefs about Jesus when members are confused about whether Jesus is God or whether we worship Him.

Back in 1998, President Hinckley said this in Conference: "Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life."

Now look, I'm not trying to get into your bonnet, but this is a serious issue. Just look at the context of Hinckley's talk! He is talking about his answers to non-members! If he answers the question that way, is this answer not good enough for us? I strongly encourage you to take a good hard look at the scriptures and the talks of our modern prophets. MORMONS WORSHIP JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE ETERNAL GOD.

This is not a mystery. This is not new doctrine. This should come as no shock to any Mormon. But, so long as Mormons seem to be confused about the issue, I suppose the non-Mormon community will remain so as well.

-a-train

Edited January 31, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

Interestingly, in my three years here I've seen a few LDS hold on to monotheism (Dr. Robinson, from the How Wide the Divide book, is a good example), but others embrace the middle ground of henotheism (many gods exist, but we worship only one), and some others simply say...yes we are ultimately polytheists, since we believe we will become Gods ourselves.

I hope that the spectrum is not one of theological beliefs, but of definitions of the term "monotheism". I would wager that is the case. Many LDS persons could not tell you the difference between henotheism and monotheism without a dictionary.

It is official LDS doctrine that man and God are of the same species. This by definition excludes any ability to appeal to the term "monotheism" insofar as it denotes a Diety of unique species.

-a-train

Edited January 31, 2009 by a-train

[jadams_4040]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That statement does not make any sense?:)

[Maxel]

I think in all faiths, there comes a point where the faithful must simply abandon their understanding and logic and trust in the divine power of God. For those of the Trinitarian tradition, the Trinity is one of those points. For the LDS, we find those points in different questions (i.e., if God and Man is the same species, where did that species originate?).