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

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Please explain why we need a savior and mediator if there is only "one" and the same G-d? What savior and mediator do we need before we can "come unto Christ?"

The Traveler

Honestly, I'm still not following you. The Fall put a veil between us and God and keeps us from His presence. Jesus tore away that wall of separation and we can now someday go into His holy presence.

[prisonchaplain]

RESPONSE TO FADED - POST #48

I have no issues with the common ground, and will offer a few suggested adjustments to the divergences:

First, #1 & #2 a fine.

Three, rather than describing our role as children of God as symbolic, I'd suggest explaining that we see ourselves as his created children. He is the potter, we are the clay.

Four, well, we will become godlike and godly...but not God.

Five, it's fair to say reconciliation with God is the lion's share of our purpose. As Solomon concluded, the purpose and meaning of life is to fear God and keep his commands.

Resulting values would actually be the same. I could agree with all those points on the right side, and see them as an outgrowth of my faith in what is to come. We too believe we shall rule and reign with Christ, and that we shall be exalted. We may not see ourselves becoming Gods, but we shall surely be so much more than we are...and in many ways god-like.

[Maxel]

To preface this, I do not want any part of this thread devolving into a "mine is better than yours" contest.

....

[Awesome Powerpoint Illustration]

** I CAN EDIT THE POWERPOINT, JUST TELL ME WHERE AND WHAT **

*Applauds Faded*

This is what we need- more building on common ground. Once we understand that, it's easier to highlight and accept uncommon ground.

[Faded]

RESPONSE TO FADED - POST #48

I have no issues with the common ground, and will offer a few suggested adjustments to the divergences:

First, #1 & #2 a fine.

Three, rather than describing our role as children of God as symbolic, I'd suggest explaining that we see ourselves as his created children. He is the potter, we are the clay.

At what point do you become His children? At birth? At conversion? At some other point? How do you describe this to a nonbeliever? I know that any Christian will say that God is our Father and we are His children, but because the Trinitarian must conclude that God is not of the same "species" (for lack of a better word), then I guess I just need to understand how literally you are 'children of God.' I ask because I don't know of course.

Four, well, we will become godlike and godly...but not [a] God.

I'm assuming that you meant "a God" but correct me if I assumed incorrectly. As you can easily guess, this is confusing. Obviously you do not believe that you will become Gods. So this point needs further clarification. Exactly what do you believe that you will become? What's the general consensus among Trinitarian sects? Is the godlike or godly being infinite or finite?

Five, it's fair to say reconciliation with God is the lion's share of our purpose. As Solomon concluded, the purpose and meaning of life is to fear God and keep his commands.

I think that this is true of both viewpoints. I kinda ran out of room. I'll work around that tomorrow when I get a moment.

Resulting values would actually be the same. I could agree with all those points on the right side, and see them as an outgrowth of my faith in what is to come. We too believe we shall rule and reign with Christ, and that we shall be exalted. We may not see ourselves becoming Gods, but we shall surely be so much more than we are...and in many ways god-like.

I suppose I will always find it astonishing how little difference there is between what we believe and what most of the rest of Christians believe. Why is it surprising? Because around every turn there seems to be one of my fellow Christians ready and waiting to jump down my throat and throw a hissy-fit about how wrong I am about absolutely everything I believe in. The resulting problem is that Latter Day Saints let themselves take offense and over-focus on our differences too.

One thing I wanted to help myself and others understand: What's the give and take would be for the Trinity vs the Godhead. Since I'm coming up empty, perhaps you can help me. What good things would a person gain ideologically by switching from the Godhead belief to the Trinity belief? I guess the main thing I'm getting at -- it would be unfair to have an unbalanced equation there, but I don't know how to fill in the blank.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Faded

[blusun7]

I believe there is any answer to all that seek.

Talking about JESUS is God what are we to say about this verse if such is the case.

Mark13:32

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,no,not the angels which are in heaven,neither the son,but the father

I have a girlfriend and her family is baptist. They are trying to make me understand so i went looking for myself and i found that verse.

I understand the Trinity but that verse says alot.

I m not trying to prove wrong but it is an interesting scripture.

[Hemidakota]

That is not the answer.

Being a first hand witness is the answer to understand the nature of the Godhead.

[LittleNipper]

Having GOD reveal HIS nature is the beginning of the answer to understanding it... Matthew 16:17

[prisonchaplain]

At what point do you become His children? At birth? At conversion? At some other point? How do you describe this to a nonbeliever? I know that any Christian will say that God is our Father and we are His children, but because the Trinitarian must conclude that God is not of the same "species" (for lack of a better word), then I guess I just need to understand how literally you are 'children of God.' I ask because I don't know of course.

We're all the children of God because he made us. Trinitarians join even most other Christian groups in believing we are God's highest creation, made out of nothing, made alive by his breath--the breath of life.

I'm assuming that you meant "a God" but correct me if I assumed incorrectly. As you can easily guess, this is confusing. Obviously you do not believe that you will become Gods. So this point needs further clarification. Exactly what do you believe that you will become? What's the general consensus among Trinitarian sects? Is the godlike or godly being infinite or finite?

Since we do not believe in the premortal eternal existance of humanity, we cannot be infinite. We had a finite beginning. On the other hand, our souls are immortal. We will be exalted humans. I say "godlike," because we will see as he sees. Further, the pull of sin and its vestages will be cast aside. But, no, we shall never be Gods, and for us, the term "gods," generally denotes very poor pretenders to the throne.

If it helps at all, on a spectrum between the Jehovah's Witness view that Paradise will be on earth, and those who survive Armaggedon will be faithful slaves to Jehovah and the 144,000, who will literally rebuild society to the LDS view that we shall become Gods in our own right, Trinitarians would be perhaps closer to your side than the Witness side, but likey near the center.

I suppose I will always find it astonishing how little difference there is between what we believe and what most of the rest of Christians believe. Why is it surprising? Because around every turn there seems to be one of my fellow Christians ready and waiting to jump down my throat and throw a hissy-fit about how wrong I am about absolutely everything I believe in. The resulting problem is that Latter Day Saints let themselves take offense and over-focus on our differences too.

I totally agree concerning tone, but would suggest that some of these differences, though esoteric, are signficant.

One thing I wanted to help myself and others understand: What's the give and take would be for the Trinity vs the Godhead. Since I'm coming up empty, perhaps you can help me. What good things would a person gain ideologically by switching from the Godhead belief to the Trinity belief? I guess the main thing I'm getting at -- it would be unfair to have an unbalanced equation there, but I don't know how to fill in the blank.

The biggest advantage to the Trinitarian view is that it is accurate.

[Faded]

We're all the children of God because he made us. Trinitarians join even most other Christian groups in believing we are God's highest creation, made out of nothing, made alive by his breath--the breath of life.

So if I'm understanding correctly, then it would seem accurate to say that the usage of "Children of God" by Traditional/Trinitarian Christians would be less literal than the Latter Day Saint/Godhead Christian view.

Since we do not believe in the premortal eternal existence of humanity, we cannot be infinite. We had a finite beginning. On the other hand, our souls are immortal. We will be exalted humans. I say "godlike," because we will see as he sees. Further, the pull of sin and its vestiges will be cast aside. But, no, we shall never be Gods, and for us, the term "gods," generally denotes very poor pretenders to the throne.

It's one of those interestingly touchy points to virtually all of traditional Christianity -- the "great heresy" of saying that any human being can become a god, etc. It has often puzzled me just how offensive this matter is -- very similar to daring to deny the Trinity Doctrine. It seems that a lot of Christians get very angry at both suggestions, but they don't completely understand why. Very, very similar to the blind rage that the Jews had learned for anyone daring to utter the name Jehovah -- so much so that Jehovah (Jesus) himself could not say his own name and they sought to stone him to death.

As I've studied into the matter, I think it goes back to two of the more persistent and stubborn "heresies" in Christian History: 1.) Arian Christians and 2.) Gnostic Christians. The Gnostics held some very interesting and odd beliefs. Some of them held the conviction that the men could one day be gods. Gnosticism refers to a very broad range of beliefs and covers a lot of ground. Some of it is very appealing and interesting. Some of it is downright revolting. Much of Gnosticism was accepted as correct, much of it was condemned as heretical. Both Arian and Gnostic Christians had remnants groups that persisted for many centuries in spite of constant efforts to eradicate them. Eventually, they were eliminated. It seems very logical to me that this is the underlying source of the utter disgust Trinitarians have for both ideas. It took centuries to get rid of them, so the Church did it's utmost to forever put a nail in the coffin of these two dead "heresies" in hopes that they would never rise again. For the traditional and trinitarian Christian, this would have to be viewed as a great victory. For the Latter-Day Saint, this would be best understood as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Arianism and Gnosticism both came to some very odd and incorrect conclusions, yet from the Latter-Day Saint view, they had been the inheritors of the tattered remnants of two pieces of true doctrine.

I totally agree concerning tone, but would suggest that some of these differences, though esoteric, are significant.

The differences are significant, yes. But as you can gather from the questions and statements throughout the thread, the overemphasis has lead both sides to completely fail to comprehend what the other believes, and has often handicapped each side from properly understanding their own side's doctrine.

The biggest advantage to the Trinitarian view is that it is accurate.

Is this the part where I say, "I know you are but what am I?" Or is it, "I know I'm right, but what are you?"

I suppose you can see the trouble a Latter-Day Saint is going to have with the Trinity. The Godhead doctrine and the conclusions drawn from it are very appealing. Letting go of them and accepting the Trinity could easily be seen as a downgrade in the good news. That fact, in and of itself is certainly not proof of anything. Just observation.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Faded

[Traveler]

Honestly, I'm still not following you. The Fall put a veil between us and God and keeps us from His presence. Jesus tore away that wall of separation and we can now someday go into His holy presence.

I think you are missing a few things - even the priesthood we have is after the "order" of the Son. After the fall man has no accesses to anything divine except for and through Jesus. If Jesus had not “condescended” from his divine position (of G-d) we would be cut off forever to all inclusive of G-d the Father of Heaven.

The point is this. Our G-d prior to the fall was the great Father that is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven. After the fall our only G-d is Jesus Christ who is the “keeper” of the way to that Kingdom of heaven. Without the help of Jesus to mediate for us the Father neither would nor could ever again be our G-d. Our G-d was changed by the fall.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

We're all the children of God because he made us. Trinitarians join even most other Christian groups in believing we are God's highest creation, made out of nothing, made alive by his breath--the breath of life.

........

I have always believed the scriptures to be very clear that man (including Adam and you and me) was created by something (called dust in scripture). I also believe that you were created from something but that you are not a lesser thing because you were created from a sperm and egg. You are a creation of G-d and an example of G-d creating. G-d who is wise and can be trusted; always selects the one correct way that no one can improve. This is why we can trust that G-d will provide the one correct way back to heaven.

Where did you get the idea that you were created from nothing?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I have always believed the scriptures to be very clear that man (including Adam and you and me) was created by something (called dust in scripture). I also believe that you were created from something but that you are not a lesser thing because you were created from a sperm and egg. You are a creation of G-d and an example of G-d creating. G-d who is wise and can be trusted; always selects the one correct way that no one can improve. This is why we can trust that G-d will provide the one correct way back to heaven.

Where did you get the idea that you were created from nothing?

The Traveler

OK...Adam and Eve created from the dust...but where'd the dust come from? We see "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and we take it to mean that before the beginning there were no heavens and earth. He made them. From what? "God said...and there was..."

You have added revelation that teaches you otherwise, but that's how we read Genesis.

[Maxel]

OK...Adam and Eve created from the dust...but where'd the dust come from? We see "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and we take it to mean that before the beginning there were no heavens and earth. He made them. From what? "God said...and there was..."

You have added revelation that teaches you otherwise, but that's how we read Genesis.

That's the doctrine of ex nihilo, is it not? The belief that God created matter that did not exist before it was created?

Another example of difference in belief- the LDS reject the doctrine of ex nihilo and attaches to physical matter the property of eternal existence.

[Islander]

We trip over the linguistic mire here again. The Hebrews never had such problems. Only God can bring matter into existence to be subject to the laws of physics He also caused to come about to subject ALL matter to it.

This word (create) in Hebrew is ONLY used for the work of God as He brings about the genesis of the world and the universe.

[Maxel]

Islander, I quite agree with you.

May I suggest the rest of this topic be devoted to finding out the differences and similarities between the LDS faith and general Trinitarianism? I think we can delve further than just the Godhead/Trinity difference, but if we are bogged down by debate on who's right we'll never get anywhere in terms of understanding one another. Personally, I am quite enjoying learning about the faith of Trinitarians. We have plenty of places to argue about who's right; I think everyone here can add a lot to the discussion if we just change our focus a tad.

I think Faded and prisonchaplain are doing really well, with Faded's neat PowerPoint slide. I really want to learn more.

[Traveler]

OK...Adam and Eve created from the dust...but where'd the dust come from? We see "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and we take it to mean that before the beginning there were no heavens and earth. He made them. From what? "God said...and there was..."

You have added revelation that teaches you otherwise, but that's how we read Genesis.

Thank you for responding – I am trying to understand but I believe that there are two very important concepts about creation.

1. That taking something like dust and making something else is creating. Therefore we know that it is not contrary to G-d to create something from something else that already existed.

Now, since it is possible that G-d does create something from that which already exists is it possible that G-d would create without using something that existed prior to the creating processes. I submit that we have evidence from both science and scripture that proves otherwise.

From science we learn that matter and energy (energy being an expression of power) are interchangeable. It can be argued that matter is in essence an organization of energy or power in the exact manner that organic life is in essence a organization of dust. We know that G-d has access to unlimited power and I see no reason to assume that G-d created anything that we know of or about, outside of his utilizing and accessing his unlimited power. I also submit that his power did indeed exist prior to any creation and was just as real a something prior to any creation as dust was a real something prior to the creation of man. Therefore, I submit that in truth creation is not a great mystery of something from nothing but that G-d does create all things from that which already is.

To be honest I see the concept of creation from nothing more or a concept to disprove G-d than the scientific and religious idea that G-d was an essential element of creation to organize that which was before (in a useless state that could not be utilized) to that which is now a state that can and does support organic life.

So I ask again – where does the idea come from that creation came from nothing? Why do you read Genesis void of what we know has been verified from science and also given as revelation?

The Traveler

[Faded]

So I ask again – where does the idea come from that creation came from nothing? Why do you read Genesis void of what we know has been verified from science and also given as revelation?

The Traveler

Gen.1

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is the verse that gets interpreted to imply that God created the Earth out of nothing.

Here are the next several verses of Genesis 1.

[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

There are several ways of interpreting verse 1. The Evangelical and Charismatic Christian groups are taking, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" to mean "God spoke the world into existence" or "God brought heaven and earth into existence from nothing." Other Christian religions including our own would take that passage to mean, "The following is the account of God creating the heavens and the earth."

This is not a case where you have the virtual whole of Christianity on one side and the LDS faith on the other. Interpretations of Genesis 1:1 vary a good deal from sect to sect.

If it's to be a matter of further discussion, someone needs to start a new thread. It's putting this one off-topic.

[LittleNipper]

That's the doctrine of ex nihilo, is it not? The belief that God created matter that did not exist before it was created?

Another example of difference in belief- the LDS reject the doctrine of ex nihilo and attaches to physical matter the property of eternal existence.

And that lessens GOD's creative magnitude capabilities... It would also seem to place GOD in subjection to the physical and not master over it as the CREATOR of it. HE would seemingly be reduced to a manipulator.

Edited February 9, 2009 by LittleNipper

[Islander]

And that lessens GOD's creative magnitude capabilities... It would also seem to place GOD in subjection to the physical and not master over it as the CREATOR of it. HE would seemingly be reduced to a manipulator.

You need to read the passage in Genesis again. The matter was already created by God and the laws of physics thereof. We have no idea how old the universe is. It could have been 5 billion years before God created the earth itself. Thus the matter was already in existence and subject to the lwas the He created. Genesis ONLY applies to the earth creative period.

[LittleNipper]

You need to read the passage in Genesis again. The matter was already created by God and the laws of physics thereof. We have no idea how old the universe is. It could have been 5 billion years before God created the earth itself. Thus the matter was already in existence and subject to the lwas the He created. Genesis ONLY applies to the earth creative period.

I believe you are referring to the "...without form and void." GOD placed the creation in subjection but that would not mean that GOD placed HIMSELF in subjection.

[Hemidakota]

You need to read the passage in Genesis again. The matter was already created by God and the laws of physics thereof. We have no idea how old the universe is. It could have been 5 billion years before God created the earth itself. Thus the matter was already in existence and subject to the was the He created. Genesis ONLY applies to the earth creative period.

I do believe the earth is a lot order than that since it failed before. Time is a measurement of rotation on a orbital plane. If that being the case, earth was placed here and hence, without further light and knowledge, we simple do not know how long its been and where's the previous location of this world was formed.

[Islander]

I believe you are referring to the "...without form and void." GOD placed the creation in subjection but that would not mean that GOD placed HIMSELF in subjection.

Of course. He is after all the CREATOR.

[LittleNipper]

Of course. He is after all the CREATOR.

JESUS CHRIST also calmed the storms. HE was not in subjection to the weather/nature. HE brought the dead back to like. Where does that happen in nature?

[Islander]

JESUS CHRIST also calmed the storms. HE was not in subjection to the weather/nature. HE brought the dead back to like. Where does that happen in nature?

No argument there. I do not understand your point.

[Maxel]

I think the argument LittleNipper is making is this:

If God did not create the physical elements out of nothing, and they existed before Him, then somehow they are above him in power. He is reduced from the rank of Creator and Architect to Manipulator. This comes from the idea that anything that is eternal is given all power, and the only one to whom all power is given in the universe is God. Therefore, God had to have existed apart from space and time to be truly 'above' them. (IF I misunderstand, please correct me)

An argument like that makes no sense from an LDS viewpoint because we understand the nature of God differently from our Christian brothers from traditional denominations who accept the ancient creeds equal with scriptural authority.

Again, it ALL goes back to the nature of God, which is what this thread was originally meant to address.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Maxel