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

[Hemidakota]

If there is order, there is time and space. Though, not measurable to our current mortal thinking, GOD is not outside of the realm. Read D&C 137.

We have been saying for quite sometime that GOD is not the author of matter or intelligence. If that is the case, who was?

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Why would it be a mystery to say that God created the world out of nothing, but not a mystery to say that matter is eternal--that there has always been stuff?

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.

The idea of Prime Mover, First Cause, etc. has always been a Theistic one, used in philosphical debates to suggest God--not to disprove.

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?

Science is the study of what is and how it works, not what was before what is. Now, if science can prove that matter is eternal, that will be another issue. However, what you suggest is a hypothesis, not a theory with wide consensus. If I'm wrong, please explain more clearly about the unity in the scientific community around the belief that matter is eternal.

[Maxel]

Science is the study of what is and how it works, not what was before what is. Now, if science can prove that matter is eternal, that will be another issue. However, what you suggest is a hypothesis, not a theory with wide consensus. If I'm wrong, please explain more clearly about the unity in the scientific community around the belief that matter is eternal.

I thought the Law of the Conservation of Matter stated that matter cannot be made or destroyed under normal conditions?

[Dymmesdale]

Hemidakota, I have to disagree with you here. God is the author and creator of matter and intelligence. Nothing existed before God, because he exists from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). He exists outside time and space, because time and space are both finite concepts. If God is eternal, then he cannot exist within the bounds of time and space.

[prisonchaplain]

I thought the Law of the Conservation of Matter stated that matter cannot be made or destroyed under normal conditions?

I'm not much of a science guy. Did some googling, and there is a fair amount of research on "Mormon cosmology," and the idea of an eternal, beginningless universe. However, the mainstream view seems to be that there was a singularity and so must have been a start point. See: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

I would quickly find myself in over my head if I attempted to debate the science of this, except to say there is no overwhelming consensus, and there certainly is a strong contingent of scientists who believe there was a start point.

[Maxel]

I'm not much of a science guy.

Me neither; my citing the Law of the Conservation of Matter is about as in-depth as my knowledge in this area runs. If I remember right; the Law of the Conservation of Matter stated that under normal circumstances matter could not be created nor destroyed, but the existence of matter lends to the theory that, at one time, it had to have been created.

Did some googling, and there is a fair amount of research on "Mormon cosmology," and the idea of an eternal, beginningless universe. However, the mainstream view seems to be that there was a singularity and so must have been a start point. See: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

I would quickly find myself in over my head if I attempted to debate the science of this, except to say there is no overwhelming consensus, and there certainly is a strong contingent of scientists who believe there was a start point.

Thanks PC- a search on 'Mormon Cosmology' actually yielded quite a few results that I am now going to peruse for my amusement and enlightenment. Also, the ever-faithful wikipedia engine has returned this page about the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter. I notice a premise of the Law is the requirement of a 'closed system'- which I assume all of Existence/Creation to be, but I'm not going to speak for God here. Interesting concept...

Anyway, my apology for hijacking this thread a little bit. I notice the thread entitled 'By HIM all things were made' is currently discussing the Trinity/Godhead, and this thread is now discussing the nature of God's creations.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Maxel
Grammar

[omega0401]

There is the possibility of an existence before the universe began. That we are just one of many universes. I wish I could find the article I read a few months ago on the internet that talked about that very thing. Certainly God can exist even before this universe existed.

[blusun7]

In titus i believe it says that Jesus was forordain to do what he did it says that way too.i ll double check what book

[LittleNipper]

There is the possibility of an existence before the universe began. That we are just one of many universes. I wish I could find the article I read a few months ago on the internet that talked about that very thing. Certainly God can exist even before this universe existed.

It is hard for humans to imagine that GOD created time or an existance without it...

[nzorient]

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.

I agree. Before I really knew about Christianity, I had read fliers that people drop into our mailbox about God is One and God is Trinity etc etc. If you don't know about Christianity, it doesn't make sense. I hope He has a good sense of humor because I honestly thought that God was like an octopus.

When I was investigating the LDS Church, until the missionaries spent the whole day trying to help me understand, I really wouldn't have known. (And that He is not an alien).

I think it is really important to try to explain Christianity concepts clearly, especially the God Head, otherwise it is very confusing (I know it is for many Chinese people). Also I feel if you don't really understand what you are trying to believe, it doesn't draw your heart nearer to God.

[LittleNipper]

I would like to point out that everything in the Bible is there for a spiritual meaning. There is nothing abitrary with regard to the Bible. If one can at least accept that, then the Trinity can be seen even in the following found in Revelations 4:8 ..."Holy, holy, holy is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who was, and is, and is to come."

The same was the inspiration for the great christian hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"

Holy, Holy, Holy is a Christian hymn written by Reginald Heber (1783-1826). Its lyrics speak specifically on the Trinity as stated in Christian theology. It was written specifically for the use on Trinity Sunday, which occurs eight weeks after Easter The tune used for this hymn, "Nicaea", was named after the Nicaean Council in 325. It was composed by John Bacchus Dykes in 1861 specifically for the lyrics. The composer wrote many tunes to hymns (over 300) and many are still in use today.

I have come to the conclusion that ALMIGHTY GOD maybe the term GOD applies to the THREE personages together.

Lyrics (I do so love to hear this sung in parts ---- being a tenor)

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!

Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;

Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy! all the saints adore Thee,

Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;

Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,

Which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,

Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see;

Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee,

Perfect in power, in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!

All Thy works shall praise Thy Name, in earth, and sky, and sea;

Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

[Maureen]

The same was the inspiration for the great christian hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"

This is the opening hymn in the Lutheran church I attended growing up.

[Maxel]

I would like to point out that everything in the Bible is there for a spiritual meaning. There is nothing abitrary with regard to the Bible. If one can at least accept that, then the Trinity can be seen even in the following found in Revelations 4:8 ..."Holy, holy, holy is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who was, and is, and is to come."

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I firmly disagree with the portion I put in bold text. I maintain that, if a person believes the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible, then that person is reading extra-biblical doctrinal reasoning into the text of the Bible itself.

As most Bible dictionaries point out (see examples below), the Nicene Creed's doctrine of the Trinity as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- all constituting the same, one God -- is not found in the New Testament. It is a theological doctrine first articulated near the end of the 2nd century A.D. That trinitarian doctrine was first codified and enforced in the church via the Constantine-sponsored Nicene Creed in 325 A.D. Even after that the issue continued to be hotly debated, until such debate ultimately was brutally suppressed.

The Trinity; The Doctrine of the Trinity- An Introduction (top of page; first entry). Emphasis mine.

One of those 'Bible dictionaries' referenced above is the Harper's Bible Dictionary, which reads:

Trinity, the, a term denoting the specifically Christian doctrine that God is a unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word itself does not occur in the Bible. It is generally acknowledged that the church father Tertullian (ca. a.d. 145-220) either coined the term or was the first to use it with reference to God. The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the postbiblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT . Attempts to trace the origins still earlier (to the ot literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments...

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT. Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.

Harper's Bible Dictionary (roughly 3/4 way down the page; I would encourage anyone interested to read the examples listed there that support the trinitarian doctrine (I have omitted said examples to conserve space)). Emphasis mine.

It follows that the neither the Latter-day Saints nor traditional Christians actually read the Bible with no extra-biblical influences. The Latter-day Saints are influenced by what they believe to be other works of scripture and revelation (the Standard Works), traditional Christians are influenced by the philosophical post-biblical explanations of Biblical doctrine (i.e., the Councils and Creeds).

Edited February 17, 2009 by Maxel

[LittleNipper]

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I firmly disagree with the portion I put in bold text. I maintain that, if a person believes the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible, then that person is reading extra-biblical doctrinal reasoning into the text of the Bible itself.

One of those 'Bible dictionaries' referenced above is the Harper's Bible Dictionary, which reads:

It follows that the neither the Latter-day Saints nor traditional Christians actually read the Bible with no extra-biblical influences. The Latter-day Saints are influenced by what they believe to be other works of scripture and revelation (the Standard Works), traditional Christians are influenced by the philosophical post-biblical explanations of Biblical doctrine (i.e., the Councils and Creeds).

I believe that GOD reveals HIMSELF to HIS true believers and through the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT, they come to recognize such truths as the TRINITY. I do believe you asked before concerning additional revelations...

Edited February 17, 2009 by LittleNipper

[Maxel]

I believe that GOD reveals HIMSELF to HIS true believers and through the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT, they come to recognize such truths as the TRINITY. I do believe you asked before concerning additional revelations...

I don't remember where before I've 'asked concerning additional revelations' on this thread, but I think I understand where you're coming from.

And I won't argue on the grounds that what you believe to be revelation is untrue; I believe I have received revelation that states the opposite. What's the point? However, I will ask you this: do you accept the Creeds as holy scripture, on par with the Bible?

[Islander]

I believe that GOD reveals HIMSELF to HIS true believers and through the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT, they come to recognize such truths as the TRINITY. I do believe you asked before concerning additional revelations...

The "Trinity" IS NOT from God. It isnot a biblical concept. It is a man-made theological construct that you have accepted as such. Feel free.

If you would read the bible without bias, preconceived ideas or notions you would know that The Father sits in His throne, mighty and omnipotent, with His Son, our Savior and Redeemer, Him who was crucified for our sins, standing at the right hand of The Father. And The Holy Ghost dwells and touches our hearts and declare that the above is true as it is written and we have heard the testimony of the prophets.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Islander

[Faded]

I would like to point out that everything in the Bible is there for a spiritual meaning. There is nothing abitrary with regard to the Bible. If one can at least accept that, then the Trinity can be seen even in the following found in Revelations 4:8 ..."Holy, holy, holy is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who was, and is, and is to come."

The same was the inspiration for the great christian hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"

This is one of a long list of examples where the Trinity Doctrine supercedes scripture. From my reading of this scripture, I don't see the Trinity at all. What I see is a the word "Holy" repeated three times. Does repeating a word three times mean there are three people?

If so, what about this scripture?

[13] And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

The three "woes" are pointing toward "the inhabiters of the earth." Should we presume that there are three people inhabiting the earth then?

The adherents of the Trinity doctrine can choose to believe that the passage you quoted is explicit reference to the three persons within God. What I see in that is a TON of reading things into the passage, because it doesn't say that at all.

The Trinity and Godhead Doctrines have essentially become a lens through which the entire Bible must be read and interpreted. The Bible does not contradict either of them explicitly. But certain passages of scripture become "obvious references" or "clear confirmation" to one or the other because we tend approach our entire study of the Bible with the absolute certainty that our respective definitions of the nature of God are correct. Hence, the quoted scripture above has been taken to have special reference to the Trinity for LittleNipper. But the scripture certainly doesn't explicitly validate the Trinity Doctrine.

It could easily be used by someone who believes in the Godhead doctrine to validate their own point of view. It hasn't been, but it is nondescript enough that it could be used equally well to support either point of view.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Faded

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Hebrews

Chapter 1

List Paragraphs

Next Chapter

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

[LittleNipper]

I don't remember where before I've 'asked concerning additional revelations' on this thread, but I think I understand where you're coming from.

And I won't argue on the grounds that what you believe to be revelation is untrue; I believe I have received revelation that states the opposite. What's the point? However, I will ask you this: do you accept the Creeds as holy scripture, on par with the Bible?

Might you explain just what is wrong with the Creed? Below is the Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now I do not hold it to be scripture, but I do see it to be a biblical guide for me. Is it possible to find Chapter/verses to support it? ---- I do believe so. It must be understood that I see "catholic" to mean UNIVERSAL (the bride of Christ). I see THE baptism as being the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostolic part is see as being the founding of the early church (I do not hold to apostolic succession).

[LittleNipper]

This is one of a long list of examples where the Trinity Doctrine supercedes scripture. From my reading of this scripture, I don't see the Trinity at all. What I see is a the word "Holy" repeated three times. Does repeating a word three times mean there are three people?

If so, what about this scripture?

The three "woes" are pointing toward "the inhabiters of the earth." Should we presume that there are three people inhabiting the earth then?

The adherents of the Trinity doctrine can choose to believe that the passage you quoted is explicit reference to the three persons within God. What I see in that is a TON of reading things into the passage, because it doesn't say that at all.

The Trinity and Godhead Doctrines have essentially become a lens through which the entire Bible must be read and interpreted. The Bible does not contradict either of them explicitly. But certain passages of scripture become "obvious references" or "clear confirmation" to one or the other because we tend approach our entire study of the Bible with the absolute certainty that our respective definitions of the nature of God are correct. Hence, the quoted scripture above has been taken to have special reference to the Trinity for LittleNipper. But the scripture certainly doesn't explicitly validate the Trinity Doctrine.

It could easily be used by someone who believes in the Godhead doctrine to validate their own point of view. It hasn't been, but it is nondescript enough that it could be used equally well to support either point of view.

"Woe, woe, woe," means that those men, in that day, will be dealing with THE JUST ALMIGHTY (full TRINITY) GOD. The age of CHRIST's grace will be offically over. Why did JESUS speak in parables to HIS disciples? Wasn't it so that everyone would not understand. GOD doesn't cast HIS pearls before swine either itmaybe presumed (no insult intended ---- just something to think about)....

Edited February 18, 2009 by LittleNipper

[Faded]

"Woe, woe, woe," means that those men, in that day, will be dealing with THE JUST ALMIGHTY (full TRINITY) GOD. The age of CHRIST's grace will be offically over. Why did JESUS speak in parables to HIS disciples? Wasn't it so that everyone would not understand. GOD doesn't cast HIS pearls before swine either it maybe presumed (no insult intended ---- just something to think about)....

There are a lot of possible interpretations of the scripture you quoted.

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who was, and is, and is to come." Without needing anymore text that what you quoted, it could easily mean, "The Lord God Almighty was holy, is holy and will be holy." That would fulfill the same need for "holy, holy, holy" to refer to three things.

Another point to consider is the theological significance of the number three to writer. In Hebrew, the number three (gimel) has special significance. The word gimel is related to gemul, which means justified repayment, or the giving of reward and punishment. Thus, the scripture may not be pointing towards any sort of Triune nature of god, but rather his perfect justness when repaying the wicked, while likewise being perfect in rewarding the righteous. Many of the Hebrew numbers have theological significance and are intentionally used by writers of scripture to reference their underlying meaning, just as the directions of the compass are. The number three is of particular importance throughout scripture.

I had never seen that scripture used to validate the correctness of the Trinity doctrine before, but of course I grew up in the LDS faith so I did not have anyone pointing out all of the scriptures that "proved" the Trinity to be correct. As with any passage of scriptures there are a lot of ways to interpret it. Unfortunately, the Bible does not contain any passage of scripture that is as definite as either side needs it to be.

One can trade passages and "Bible Bash" all day, but I've seen it attempted and nobody has succeeded to prove that their point of view is correct by the Bible alone. And to add to the impossibility, the Trinity and Godhead doctrines are not as different and people tend to believe that they are, as I've already pointed out.

This is why we as Latter Day Saints believe it was so important for modern day revelation. Nobody can set the record straight but God himself. We believe he has. Joseph Smith did not go into the grove of trees to find a way to prove the Nicene Creed to be false. He went looking for direction from God and he got it. The fact that a different concept of the nature of God and mankind's relationship to Him came as a result, but that was not Joseph Smith's intention. All he sought was the will of God. Imperfect man didn't do it. Theological debate didn't do it. God revealed it directly, just as he always has done. Is there any better way?

[LittleNipper]

There are a lot of possible interpretations of the scripture you quoted.

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, who was, and is, and is to come." Without needing anymore text that what you quoted, it could easily mean, "The Lord God Almighty was holy, is holy and will be holy." That would fulfill the same need for "holy, holy, holy" to refer to three things.

Another point to consider is the theological significance of the number three to writer. In Hebrew, the number three (gimel) has special significance. The word gimel is related to gemul, which means justified repayment, or the giving of reward and punishment. Thus, the scripture may not be pointing towards any sort of Triune nature of god, but rather his perfect justness when repaying the wicked, while likewise being perfect in rewarding the righteous. Many of the Hebrew numbers have theological significance and are intentionally used by writers of scripture to reference their underlying meaning, just as the directions of the compass are. The number three is of particular importance throughout scripture.

I had never seen that scripture used to validate the correctness of the Trinity doctrine before, but of course I grew up in the LDS faith so I did not have anyone pointing out all of the scriptures that "proved" the Trinity to be correct. As with any passage of scriptures there are a lot of ways to interpret it. Unfortunately, the Bible does not contain any passage of scripture that is as definite as either side needs it to be.

One can trade passages and "Bible Bash" all day, but I've seen it attempted and nobody has succeeded to prove that their point of view is correct by the Bible alone. And to add to the impossibility, the Trinity and Godhead doctrines are not as different and people tend to believe that they are, as I've already pointed out.

This is why we as Latter Day Saints believe it was so important for modern day revelation. Nobody can set the record straight but God himself. We believe he has. Joseph Smith did not go into the grove of trees to find a way to prove the Nicene Creed to be false. He went looking for direction from God and he got it. The fact that a different concept of the nature of God and mankind's relationship to Him came as a result, but that was not Joseph Smith's intention. All he sought was the will of God. Imperfect man didn't do it. Theological debate didn't do it. God revealed it directly, just as he always has done. Is there any better way?

What about a one on one with GOD. As a Christian, I actually feel that, being an adopted child of GOD, I no longer need a "prophet" to stand between me and GOD. There is no HOLY of HOLIES any longer. The curtain was torn in twain. Children of GOD may now stand in the presence of GOD by the HOLY SPIRIT without a priest...

[Hemidakota]

How are you adopted child of GOD? Are not HIS creation that was put forth by Moses in Genesis?

[LittleNipper]

How are you adopted child of GOD? Are not HIS creation that was put forth by Moses in Genesis?

Ephesians 1:5

Romans 8:23

What do you think of these verses of scripture?

[Hemidakota]

You are missing the point. Paul words are not easily understood unless you are walked in his shoes. What did Genesis give us as a stated fact?