The Trinity


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

The LDS Godhead may be a unity of infinite magnitude, but what troubles trinitarians is that the belief in three separate beings seems to allow for polytheism. It was mentioned earlier that Jews and Muslims accuse trinitarians of polytheism. We grant the difficulty, insist we remain committed to one God absolutely, and say that the "three persons, one God" is a mystery. Allowing for three separate beings seems, to us, to absolutely cross that line--to abandon monotheism altogether

In this matter and pretty much every other matter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints takes what God has revealed and stands by it. Does it cross the line into polytheism? I can definitely see where somebody from the outside looking in would say that it does. But the distinguishing characteristic of every other polytheistic religion in the history of the world has been that the gods of that pantheon have their own agendas and motives. The times when those agendas come into conflict is the stuff that Greek, Viking, Caananite, and Egyptian myth is made of. The gods quarrell, wage war on each other, plot against each other, etc. So if we are to be labeled polytheists (which I'm not willing to entirely concede), one must acknowledge that it's a very different take on polytheism. I'm warming up to accepting the label of henotheism -- but henotheism is still considered a flavor of monotheism by definition. I'm of the opinion that it makes no difference how the world categorizes us, so long as what we believe in is God-revealed truth, but I also know that misleading labels lead to bad rumors and general confusion.

There are many times when I feel like people are setting us up for the next propagandist smear campaign. The world's perception of "Mormons" is a very strange thing indeed. Case in point, the world should have woken up to the fact that we do not practice polygamy anymore a VERY LONG TIME AGO. But it seems that most religious educators either don't know the facts (how on earth could they not know???) or intentionally ignore the present facts and just let the false rumors rule the day. Most will even encourage those rumors. The world knows very well that slavery is no longer legal in the USA anymore. The world knows that Catholic Inquisitions are not actively seeking out heretics and heathen, torturing them and burning them at the stake anymore. But something the Latter Day Saint religion has not practiced for 130 years somehow sticks to us and never goes away. News reports on a tiny handful of groups of long since excommunicated former LDS no bigger that 10,000 strong are used to falsely paint the entire religion of 14 million that cast them out. The best known fact about "Mormonism" is completely false, purporting that members are practicing something that they don't practice and if they did practice it, they would be excommunicated. I doubt the religious world at large is very sincere about wanting to know the truth about "Mormonism" nor are they interested in really understanding what we believe/practice. Sensationalism is so much more interesting. No doubt many would say that it's all the better because it serves to scare people away from the "Mormons." "Polytheism" sounds to me like something that can and will be treated in much the same way. I think that's the biggest reason most Latter Day Saints feel apprehensive about being labeled "polytheists." Sounds like another chance for traditional Christendom to sow more misunderstanding and mischaracterization. We've learned from experience that so-called "Christians" will never let it go once they make any heretical sounding accusation stick to us.

Sorry for going on about that, but I hope it illustrates one important reason we might balk at being labeled "polytheists."

Back on topic -- We do agree that the three are co-equal. All are Omnipotent and Omniscient and you don't get more powerful nor knowledgable than infinite. God the Father takes the lead and directs the other two because that is his role in things. Christ repeatedly states this throughout the New Testament record. The Father commands and the Son complies. Such was the tale of the entire life of Jesus of Nazareth. If you would catagorize the life of Christ as subordinationism, then I suppose you could say we believe in subordinationism.

The short answer to John 5 is that I've always simply read that to mean Christ is claiming the authority to do what he does and say what he says. The context in this passages is some teachers of the law asking Jesus why his disciples violate the Sabbath. Jesus is explaining his authority--that the Father approves of all he does, and would do likewise.

There is no discussion of premortal existence here, so no need to draw conclusions about the Father having a body or literally doing what Jesus is here doing. Rather, Christ is claiming to have the approval of his Father.

But the passage does not say "approve" nor does it seem to be discussing the Father approving of anything. It seems pretty clearly stated that the Father did a number of things. Then he shows the Son everything He the Father did. Christ says he does nothing but what He sees His Father do. How can Christ claim that he does nothing except what he sees his Father do, if His Father did not also live a mortal life, suffer and die for the sins of countless others, and then rise up from the dead -- thereby breaking the bands of death for countless others? If only Jesus Christ did those things and God the Father never did anything like them, then this passage doesn't seem to make any sense.

Whether I read it in the King James or in the New International Version, I'm getting the same thing out if that passage:

John 5:

19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

If the Son can only do what he sees the Father do, then at some point the Father must have done everything that Jesus Christ did. What else can this passage mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"and thus Jesus Christ is the God who spoke to mankind in Old Testament days."

Just to clarify, does this mean there was no direct contact (physical or verbal) between the Father and humankind in the OT?

No it does not mean that the Father never made contact with humankind. It means that his Son Jehovah was and the principal messenger, and that most cases of God physically appearingin the Old Testament is an appearance of Jehovah, aka Jesus Christ.

My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17)

Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite. Also, what of the Holy Spirit?

Where did you get all of that? I'm not aware of any Latter Day Saint material that says anything like that. I'll be happy to offer an answer to your question, but first I'd like for you to cite official LDS sources stating that we believe that:

1.) Any of mankind were created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

2.) Jesus was created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

3.) Jesus Christ is not the creator of all things.

4.) That the Godhead is not infinite and eternal.

5.) Heavenly Mother officially taught and discussed. The revelations from God are silent and do not mention her. So even if we can logically conclude that she must exist, since God has remained silence on the matter then it's not our place to bandy about our logical conclusions. He does not speak of her for His own wise reasons, and we follow His example.

Soninme, I want to be completely honest with you on something. Something that has bothered me since you came to this forum: When you take our teachings and twist them around with obvious contempt for them (like you seem to be doing here), it doesn't help to maintain a civil discussion. It provokes retaliation, annimosity and misunderstanding. If I were to refer to the Trinity as "the great three legged cosmic spider-thing" (it's something I heard some Atheist say at some point) then I would be showing blatant disrespect for beliefs you hold dear. Can I humbly request that we all show more respect for each other's beliefs? Jumping to unfounded conclusions and saying "Mormons" believe X, Y and Z when we actually don't is not very polite. Accusing us of believing things we don't believe at all is rude. Telling us what we believe is extremely presumptuous. Wording things to make them sound stupid, childish or nonsensical is the province of the tabloids. It has no place in civilized discussion. You don't have to agree with me to show respect for my beliefs.

If you don't understand how we can logically get from A to B, all you have to do is ask. If I don't understand something about your beliefs, I will ask.

Remember the sceptics question of "who created God".

Can't say I'm familiar with it off-hand.

Not trying to argue but I just don't see Jesus telling us of a premortal life of the Father here.

Jesus is showing His listeners that He isn't another Being of God in competition with or a lesser god inferior to the Father but rather He is one with the Father and not off doing His own thing, so to speak. Who else can likewise do what the Father does except One that is equal in power to the Father? Jesus is worthy of the same honor as the Father, in fact not honoring Jesus as Who He claims to be is not honoring the Father at all.

I never said anything about the "premortal life of the Father." What I'm saying is that John 5 seems to indicate that God the Father at some point had a mortal life, by simple logical deduction, based upon what Christ said.

If I'm understanding the Trinity correctly, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate people. What I don't see Christ saying anything about "The Father and I are the same being." in John chapter 5. The closest thing to that is what the Pharisees and Scribes said, but Christ didn't say that at all. What I am seeing is this: Christ says that he sees what the Father does and then does the same thing. Christ says that he will never do anything unless he sees the Father do it first. If the person of God the Father did not do all the same works as the Son, then why does Jesus say that he is following in the footsteps of His Father and seeing his Father do the same works? That is how the passage is worded. Christ establishes His authority to do the things He does because all of them are things that He saw His Father do before Him. So for the Scribes and Pharasees to call Jesus a sinner would be to accuse God the Father of the same thing. Calling God the Father sinful and evil was a line they wouldn't dream of crossing.

Surely there is a clearer explanation accounting for the actual wording of this passage from the Trinitarian perspective? You may not know it off the top of your heads of course, but surely somebody somewhere has made logical sense of this passage while still maintaining that the Father has no physical body and has never lived a mortal life. I'm just very curious to know what that explanation looks like. As I said earlier, I was a little hesitant to bring it up to begin with, but curiosity got the better of me.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded, you are certainly right that LDS theology, if it is polytheism, is a unique form, in which three of the gods work as one, and the others seem to be off on their own. Further, henotheism does seem a much fairer term. It allows for the reality that there may be other gods, and that we may become gods ourselves, and yet highlights the on-going LDS singular devotion to the Godhead. Having said that, I even understand, though find it difficult to agree, with Prof. Blomberg's view that LDS theology is simply a further stretched monotheism...no more guilty of "fudging definitions" than trinitarians are.

As for polygamy, my view is that it's not even that important. It was an accepted Old Testament practice, and remains cultural acceptable in some parts of the world. Nevertheless, there is no question but that opponents have used this aspect of your history to conjur up discomfort. The practice is wierd to most Americans, so yes, to pretend to not know the practice has long been banned is dishonest, underhanded, and not-christlike.

Finally, again with John 5, my reason for seeing Jesus' discussion as one of the Father approving what he does is that Jesus was explaining and defending himself against critics who said he was violating God's law. He rejects this and says he never does what his father would not do, and has complete approval from him. "When you see me you see the Father," he says in a different setting.

My guess is that your knowledge that the Father did as Jesus did leads you to see Jesus referencing that and explaining it. Yet, nothing in the context or aftermath of Jesus' talk shows any reference to premortality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 5:17-27

"17 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth:

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

I'm not a Trinitarian, but I think I can see where you're think there's more to it than stated. For a moment, forget about the King Follett sermon. Forget about LDS theology and just focus on the words cited and their context.

Before v17, Jesus had just healed an invalid on the Sabbath. Jesus, Why did you do this on the day of rest? "My Father works today, and so do I." Then, in proper manner, Jesus further explains his thesis. The Father shows the Son what work he does (even if it is the Sabbath:

  • He raises the dead; and gives them life.
  • He judges righteously (the execution of which belongs to the Son).
  • He is the source of Life; and the Son is similarly a wellspring of Everlasting Life.
Now the stickler for you seems to be v19: The Son will only do something if he saw the Father do it. You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life? If so, that is something that Jesus may have seen his Father do, and done the same to himself. Has the Father ever raised the dead? If so, that is something that Jesus may have seen his Father do, and done the same to himself (it is clear that Jesus had learned this skill, since we see him apply it 3 times on others).

Now I'll raise a counterpoint, that prior to Jesus' resurrection, raising the dead was only a temporal, not an eternal life. This can be explained with the Father and the Son both having life in themselves. The Father may have shown the Son what "I AM" really means. You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!

Or you can sidestep it with Peter's testimony that the Son didn't actually resurrect himself, but was raised up by God on the 3rd day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that your knowledge that the Father did as Jesus did leads you to see Jesus referencing that and explaining it. Yet, nothing in the context or aftermath of Jesus' talk shows any reference to premortality.

I think the word that has me puzzled is "premortality". I'm not sure what you mean by it. My understanding of your explanation derails when I run into that word, so please explain what you mean.

I'm not talking about anything premortal. The focus of my thoughts here is 100% on the mortal lives of Father and Son. And it bears mentioning that there is no scripture in our canon that is more explicit on the matter than this one. Yes Joseph Smith taught, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." He taught that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. But nothing in our standard works seems to better describe and demonstrate what sort of mortal life God the Father had than this one. John 5 is the most explicit by far.

Some have criticized Latter Day Saints for demeaning the Father by saying he was once mortal, and by implication, the Father was once a sinful mortal man. But would they find the notion quite so demeaning if they understood that The Father's mortal life and mission was exactly the same sort as that of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Not on this world and likely not in this universe, but the same mortal mission. If we say that such a mortal mission demeans the Father, then we would be dishonoring the Son's own earthly mission.

I'm not a Trinitarian, but I think I can see where you're think there's more to it than stated. For a moment, forget about the King Follett sermon. Forget about LDS theology and just focus on the words cited and their context.

Before v17, Jesus had just healed an invalid on the Sabbath. Jesus, Why did you do this on the day of rest? "My Father works today, and so do I." Then, in proper manner, Jesus further explains his thesis. The Father shows the Son what work he does (even if it is the Sabbath:

  • He raises the dead; and gives them life.
  • He judges righteously (the execution of which belongs to the Son).
  • He is the source of Life; and the Son is similarly a wellspring of Everlasting Life.
Now the stickler for you seems to be v19: The Son will only do something if he saw the Father do it. You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life? If so, that is something that Jesus may have seen his Father do, and done the same to himself. Has the Father ever raised the dead? If so, that is something that Jesus may have seen his Father do, and done the same to himself (it is clear that Jesus had learned this skill, since we see him apply it 3 times on others).

Now I'll raise a counterpoint, that prior to Jesus' resurrection, raising the dead was only a temporal, not an eternal life. This can be explained with the Father and the Son both having life in themselves. The Father may have shown the Son what "I AM" really means. You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!

You seem to be heading in the direction and you're making some good counterpoints here, but I think I'll need better clarification on some of it.

"You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life?" Wouldn't the correct parallel for the Son laying down His life be that the Father at some point in time having laid down his life as well? I don't quite follow, "Lay down my life = Stop somebody else's life." Or am I misreading?

"that prior to Jesus' resurrection, raising the dead was only a temporal, not an eternal life." According to the Bible, we certainly know this to be true as far as this earth is concerned.

"You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!" Okay but I don't see where that precludes the Father from having done the same thing at some point. The only difficulty is sorting out where and how. We know it didn't happen on this earth because if it had then Christ's resurrection would have served no purpose. Now in Hebrews 11:3 we find mention of "worlds" in the plural. So one good logical conclusion, going just from the Bible alone, is that God the Father did the same works as Christ, but on some other world.

Or you can sidestep it with Peter's testimony that the Son didn't actually resurrect himself, but was raised up by God on the 3rd day.

I've never liked sidestepping any passage of scripture. There's a stubborn streak in me that says that the proper understanding is in that very passage, I just need to dig it out. Diverging to another passage that says "Jesus didn't raise himself, the Father did it" opens to door to the merry chaos of a good ol' Bible-bash session -- since a significant number of passages elsewhere say that Christ rose himself up from the dead. But it's a clever play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17) Remember the sceptics question of "who created God".

The Revelation of St John the Divine has this to say:

These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

The Son doesn't seem to have any qualms with identifying himself as a creation.

Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite.

Mathematically, a ray can be infinite in length (and has the same length as a line).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many times when I feel like people are setting us up for the next propagandist smear campaign. The world's perception of "Mormons" is a very strange thing indeed. Case in point, the world should have woken up to the fact that we do not practice polygamy anymore a VERY LONG TIME AGO. But it seems that most religious educators either don't know the facts (how on earth could they not know???) or intentionally ignore the present facts and just let the false rumors rule the day. Most will even encourage those rumors. The world knows very well that slavery is no longer legal in the USA anymore. The world knows that Catholic Inquisitions are not actively seeking out heretics and heathen, torturing them and burning them at the stake anymore. But something the Latter Day Saint religion has not practiced for 130 years somehow sticks to us and never goes away. News reports on a tiny handful of groups of long since excommunicated former LDS no bigger that 10,000 strong are used to falsely paint the entire religion of 14 million that cast them out. The best known fact about "Mormonism" is completely false, purporting that members are practicing something that they don't practice and if they did practice it, they would be excommunicated. I doubt the religious world at large is very sincere about wanting to know the truth about "Mormonism" nor are they interested in really understanding what we believe/practice. Sensationalism is so much more interesting. No doubt many would say that it's all the better because it serves to scare people away from the "Mormons." "Polytheism" sounds to me like something that can and will be treated in much the same way. I think that's the biggest reason most Latter Day Saints feel apprehensive about being labeled "polytheists." Sounds like another chance for traditional Christendom to sow more misunderstanding and mischaracterization. We've learned from experience that so-called "Christians" will never let it go once they make any heretical sounding accusation stick to us.

Sorry for going on about that, but I hope it illustrates one important reason we might balk at being labeled "polytheists."

Sooooo.... We have one god for every wife? Are these referred to as gods-in-law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, I want to be completely honest with you on something. Something that has bothered me since you came to this forum: When you take our teachings and twist them around with obvious contempt for them (like you seem to be doing here), it doesn't help to maintain a civil discussion. It provokes retaliation, annimosity and misunderstanding.

Faded,

If I have offended you or anyone else on this forum then I apologize. That certainly is not my intent in any discussion.

I have looked at my last post a few times, along with some others and honestly I'm wondering what I said that was so upsetting.

Jumping to unfounded conclusions and saying "Mormons" believe X, Y and Z when we actually don't is not very polite. Accusing us of believing things we don't believe at all is rude. Telling us what we believe is extremely presumptuous. Wording things to make them sound stupid, childish or nonsensical is the province of the tabloids. It has no place in civilized discussion. You don't have to agree with me to show respect for my beliefs.

Please, if I may, where did I say "Mormons believe X, Y and Z" or accused or told you what you believe? I purposely prefaced my question with; "My understanding of LDS teaching is" so as not to do what you are claiming of me. Again, it's not my intention to belittle or offend anyone. It is hard for me to convey the right "tone" in writing though I will try to do better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17)

Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite. Also, what of the Holy Spirit?

Where did you get all of that? I'm not aware of any Latter Day Saint material that says anything like that. I'll be happy to offer an answer to your question, but first I'd like for you to cite official LDS sources stating that we believe that:

1.) Any of mankind were created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

2.) Jesus was created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

3.) Jesus Christ is not the creator of all things.

4.) That the Godhead is not infinite and eternal.

5.) Heavenly Mother officially taught and discussed. The revelations from God are silent and do not mention her. So even if we can logically conclude that she must exist, since God has remained silence on the matter then it's not our place to bandy about our logical conclusions. He does not speak of her for His own wise reasons

I understand that "creation out of nothing" is not LDS teaching.

5.) "We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer [satan - ed.} was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother."

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 21.

From; The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ::Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God;the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity." MFP 4:203.

The reason I quoted that was, IF Jesus was begotten in the spirit by Father and Mother then how could He have created all things? How could He create His own spirit? How did He exist within the infinite eternal Godhead without an infinite eternal spirit?

Have I misunderstood?

I never said anything about the "premortal life of the Father."

Sorry, had a brain lapse there. I meant "mortal life" Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did He exist within the infinite eternal Godhead without an infinite eternal spirit?

Have I misunderstood?

I was just wondering, soninme, what your religion believes about our eternal nature, is it without beginning or end?

Jesus came into the world so that we wouldn't perish, but have eternal life...so would that mean that your religion believes that we have no beginning and no end? Do you belive that we existed before we were born?

I would like to know something about what you believe :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that "creation out of nothing" is not LDS teaching.

5.) "We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer [satan - ed.} was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother."

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 21.

From; The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ::Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God;the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity." MFP 4:203.

The reason I quoted that was, IF Jesus was begotten in the spirit by Father and Mother then how could He have created all things? How could He create His own spirit? How did He exist within the infinite eternal Godhead without an infinite eternal spirit?

Have I misunderstood?

Yes. You misunderstand the word BEGOTTEN. Begotten does not equal CREATED. Spirit is eternal - no beginning no end. In LDS teaching that includes your spirit and my spirit as well as Jesus' spirit.

I understand why this is difficult for you. In Catholic teaching, BIRTH is the beginning of both body and spirit, so when a Catholic says he is begotten - that equals he got created - both body and spirit. This is not true for LDS. In LDS, creation means the physical body only. Spirit is eternal. Spirits got organized - not created.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17) Remember the sceptics question of "who created God".

Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite. Also, what of the Holy Spirit?

...Where did you get all of that? I'm not aware of any Latter Day Saint material that says anything like that.

Soninme may not have worded her statement perfectly but here's information from lds.org:

“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. …

“The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. … There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [that is, co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. …

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book Co., 1938, pp. 353–54.)

Thus the capacity of choice, which is a most essential element in free agency, has evidently always been part of our being.

In the process of time each of our intelligences was clothed with a spiritual body by heavenly parents, and we became personages of spirit with bodies of eyes and ears and hands and feet. All of us on this earth had the same Father of our spiritual bodies, and because he lives in heaven, we have been rightfully taught to refer to him as “our Father in heaven.” (Daniel H. Ludlow, “Moral Free Agency,” New Era, Nov 1976, 44)

...I'll be happy to offer an answer to your question, but first I'd like for you to cite official LDS sources stating that we believe that:

1.) Any of mankind were created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

2.) Jesus was created from nothing and at some point did not exist.

Faded, I don't see how you have interpretted Soninme's statement that LDS believe mankind and Jesus were created from nothing. He's stated no such thing.

5.) Heavenly Mother officially taught and discussed. The revelations from God are silent and do not mention her. So even if we can logically conclude that she must exist, since God has remained silence on the matter then it's not our place to bandy about our logical conclusions. He does not speak of her for His own wise reasons, and we follow His example.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World mentions "heavenly parents".

Soninme, I want to be completely honest with you on something. Something that has bothered me since you came to this forum: When you take our teachings and twist them around with obvious contempt for them (like you seem to be doing here), it doesn't help to maintain a civil discussion. It provokes retaliation, annimosity and misunderstanding. If I were to refer to the Trinity as "the great three legged cosmic spider-thing" (it's something I heard some Atheist say at some point) then I would be showing blatant disrespect for beliefs you hold dear. Can I humbly request that we all show more respect for each other's beliefs? Jumping to unfounded conclusions and saying "Mormons" believe X, Y and Z when we actually don't is not very polite. Accusing us of believing things we don't believe at all is rude. Telling us what we believe is extremely presumptuous. Wording things to make them sound stupid, childish or nonsensical is the province of the tabloids. It has no place in civilized discussion. You don't have to agree with me to show respect for my beliefs.

Faded, you seem overly sensitive. You do realize that we (non-LDS) try our best to word how we understand LDS doctrine and beliefs the best we can; just like you do with statements about the Trinity. I don't think we've bitten your head off because you've chosen an incorrect word. It would help if you could give us the same leeway.

M.

Edited by Maureen
Corrected from She's to He's. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I quoted that was, IF Jesus was begotten in the spirit by Father and Mother then how could He have created all things? How could He create His own spirit? How did He exist within the infinite eternal Godhead without an infinite eternal spirit?

Have I misunderstood?

First and most important: In LDS theology, there was never a time that God did not exist. There was also never a time that the most basic and fundamental essence of each of us did not exist. This essence or "intelligence" as some LDS apostles and prophets have described -- it always was around. It always did exist. The progression from intelligence to spirit is something that we don't understand completely -- but we do know this much: It was similar to birth in the same sense that birth on the earth functions. Both Father and a Mother together accomplished this. An already existent being is added upon and becomes something more than what it was previously. From intelligence to spirit. From spirit to birth on this earth, becoming body and spirit together. The notion that any of us began to exist at any point is not in line with LDS teachings, so when you say that Christ was "created" in the sense that you intend, it isn't an accurate statement.

And thank you Maureen for also explaining it.

Why do we say that Christ is the creator of all things from the beginning. Because that is what the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants teach:

Helaman 14:12

"12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name."

Mosiah 3:8

" 8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More (Elder Russell M Nelson)

Under the direction of the Father, Jesus bore the responsibility of Creator. His title was “the Word,” (see John 1:1; JST, John 1:16). In the Greek language of the New Testament, Word was Logos, or “expression.” It was another name for the Master. That terminology may seem strange, but it is appropriate. We use words to convey our expression to others. So Jesus was the Word, or expression, of His Father to the world.

The Gospel of John proclaims that Christ is the Creator of all things: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3; see also D&C 93:21).

In modern revelation, Jesus’ responsibility as Creator of many worlds is affirmed:

“Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

“The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

“The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him”

Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-26

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

---------------------------------------------------

So to say that Christ was not the Creator of all things from the beginning would pretty directly contradict both ancient scripture and modern day revelation on the matter. What we do see is that he "was in the beginning with the Father" and that he is "the Firstborn." In this reality and universe, everything was created by Christ from that moment on. For that to be possible, he would have needed to be infinite from the very beginning of the universe. If it were not so, how could he direct the events of all creation? The Son acts under the direction of the Father in the creation of all things. He didn't create himself because he was never created. Begotten, yes. Created, no.

Are the notions of "ex nihilo creation" leading you to confusion here? You have to set your notions of creation from nothing aside if you want to understand LDS teachings. The ideas that "God spoke and the universe materialized out of nothing" or "God spoke and the world appeared out of nothing." are not only completely baffling to most any Latter Day Saint, but it's not found anywhere in the Bible. If you already believed in creation out of nothing, then of course you see it there. But if you had no notion of creation out of nothing, there is no passage that would lead you to conclude beyond all doubt that this was how "creation" occurred and indeed the intended meaning of the word "create."

As far as Heavenly Mother is concerned, if and when she is mentioned, it is brief and at no time in official LDS material do we find anything taught about her nor revealed concerning her. Some scholars will speculate and guess at more than this, but that is all they can do. We don't have anymore information on the matter than to say that she exists and that she is Mother to our spirits. It's not for us to question why we do not know more, we just trust that God has his reasons and obviously we don't need to know right now.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis 1 Does say created throughout.Doesn't exactly say out of nothing.

Raised outside of the church like some of us have been its easy to get this impression.

Abraham 3 helps tho

I Wonder what was before he organized the elements or whatever the smallest particle whether it seems to be nothing or not.

They all obey him regardless.Rocks seem to us like rocks I suppose but sometimes they must be the greatest listeners.

---------

According to what Joseph Smith said God whom we call Father has a body like us but glorified and he became this by going through a process similiar to what we are going through right?

Jesus said he couldn't do anything but what he saw Father do right?

Jesus also told Thomas that Father has many mansions and he was going to make one for him and asked him if he would come.

Then Jesus told Thomas that he would do the same things he saw Jesus do and more than he saw him do even.

So way in the future when these things take place and Thomas and possibly more of us get to do these things if found worthy.

Who will do what in Thomas's mansion? What role would Thomas be playing at that time? And What roles would Jesus and Father have at this time?

They would have a part in it I'm sure.Two would most likely openly in this example be known as God by all. The people would do just like we do understand what we can and ponder the rest till we learn the answer if were meant too,I suppose.The third one would be a mystery to many and hard to understand at times but still something acknowledged as somehow the same but different than the other two.A few other things said about this one that's pretty quiet at times.He testifies of the other two and doesn't speak of himself much and if you speak against him you can't be forgiven even tho many will say things against God and Jesus and be forgiven.

Hmm..............

Yes.... I know I'm speculating....can't help it.Story problems :(

It's kind of logical tho with the things that have been said.

Anyways Just a thought....Go back to ignoring me :)

Side note to this logic tho many of us are raised up ad have been told or told others

to be careful about talking back or about our and others Mothers so

thats worth mentioning too....

Had to get that off my chest for some reason. Been pondering it much the last few days.

My apologies, Thanks for bearing with my rambling.I'm done for now, I think.

Edited by Therauh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis 1 Does say created throughout.Doesn't exactly say out of nothing.

Raised outside of the church like some of us have been its easy to get this impression.

Ex nihilo creation is one of those doctrines that I've often puzzled at. I'm not sure where the idea came from, but it's one of the two pieces of the Council of Nicaea that nearly all Christianity accepts without question, and defends vigorously. The Hebrew word doesn't indicate making something from nothing, but making one thing from another thing. "Organize" is another way the word could be translated. This is the sense that the word "create" functions in every other instance in the English language and in any language. Making something out of nothing is a definition for the word "create" that is applicable only to this theory about how the Judeo-Christian God creates things.

It becomes an interesting point when it comes to comparative religion though. Many who accept this doctrine feel that we diminish Gods' power and make Him less by saying that he didn't pop the Universe and the Earth out of oblivion and into existence. While I can understand where they're coming from, it's just common sense to use already existing materials when they happen to already be there. Also, it not necessarily a true statement that to build from something is easier than building from nothing.

Take building a house for example. It takes a lot of work, time, effort and patience to fully restore a run down 120 year old Victorian mansion to pristine condition. It would be far easier and cheaper to build a brand new house of the same size, and making it a rough copy of the original. Making order out of chaos is often more work and effort just making order out of nothing.

And ultimately it does not demean God in anyway to say that one non-Biblical theory of how God creates is inaccurate. God never said he created the universe like that, so if we say that he has revealed to modern prophets that he created in a different way, then I don't see that problem there. It's not uncommon for rumors and gossip to fabricate that a person did or said something that they didn't. From our point of view this would be no different.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 21. ?

If you read the introduction to this book, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" and a great many other books, you will find a disclaimer in there.

Copied verbatim from our own copy of volume 1 of "The Mortal Messiah": "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

That is not to say that McConkie wasn't a prophet and apostle, but that this work was presented as a collection of his own scholarly commentary. Most of the opinions therein are probably going to be a true reflection of LDS belief, however it is not official. Because it is unofficial, it allows McConkie to venture into theological theory and explore beyond the limits of official LDS doctrine. Not a bad thing, but in more than one case, theory-crafting on LDS theology has produced incorrect or unproven conclusions. Actually, a couple very notable cases were opinions and theories of Bruce R McConkie.

If you can find a book that has "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" stamped on the cover or binding, that's probably an official text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering, soninme, what your religion believes about our eternal nature, is it without beginning or end?

Jesus came into the world so that we wouldn't perish, but have eternal life...so would that mean that your religion believes that we have no beginning and no end? Do you belive that we existed before we were born?

I would like to know something about what you believe

Hi Jayanna, I am happy to answer your question as best as I can.

I believe that humans have not existed from eternity but have a beginning. I believe God in His omniscience has known me from eternity and that blows my mind. I believe, once created, that humans will exist for eternity either with God (in His presence, Heaven/ New Earth)) or without Him (Hell). So no, I don't believe that we existed before we were born.

From anatess;

Yes. You misunderstand the word BEGOTTEN. Begotten does not equal CREATED. Spirit is eternal - no beginning no end. In LDS teaching that includes your spirit and my spirit as well as Jesus' spirit. ....... Spirit is eternal. Spirits got organized - not created.

I agree "Begotten does not equal created" in my understanding.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by "Spirit is eternal. Spirits got organized - not created"

Why would a spirit need to be organized if it's eternal? What needed to be organized? Was the spirit incomplete?

Why I ask is; how could Jesus be a member of the infinite and eternal Godhead if there was a time when His spirit was not yet organized?

"We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer [satan - ed.} was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother."Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 21.

The bolded part was where I got the idea that Jesus was created."came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order".

From Faded,

First and most important: In LDS theology, there was never a time that God did not exist. There was also never a time that the most basic and fundamental essence of each of us did not exist. This essence or "intelligence" as some LDS apostles and prophets have described -- it always was around. It always did exist. The progression from intelligence to spirit is something that we don't understand completely -- but we do know this much: It was similar to birth in the same sense that birth on the earth functions. Both Father and a Mother together accomplished this. An already existent being is added upon and becomes something more than what it was previously. From intelligence to spirit. From spirit to birth on this earth, becoming body and spirit together. The notion that any of us began to exist at any point is not in line with LDS teachings, so when you say that Christ was "created" in the sense that you intend, it isn't an accurate statement.

Would the bolded part then mean that the Godhead was not always what it is today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree "Begotten does not equal created" in my understanding.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by "Spirit is eternal. Spirits got organized - not created"

Why would a spirit need to be organized if it's eternal? What needed to be organized? Was the spirit incomplete?

It's a good enough question, and insofar as I'm aware, we don't have a thorough answer. What we do know is that by being begotten of God the Father, a less advanced being (Mormon vocabulary term = intelligences) is advanced to it's lesser existence to a higher one. How does this work exactly? I have no idea. But the fundamental core essence of every human being to ever live has no beginning and no end.

Why I ask is; how could Jesus be a member of the infinite and eternal Godhead if there was a time when His spirit was not yet organized?

The bolded part was where I got the idea that Jesus was created." came into being as conscious identities in our appointed order".

Would the bolded part then mean that the Godhead was not always what it is today?

In order to remain in harmony with the Bible, it would only have to be demonstrated that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are an infinite and eternal Godhead. The infinite part is easy enough -- though the Biblical phrasing doesn't say infinite. The Bible actually doesn't use the word "infinite" to describe God, but it can be implied readily enough from the text.

It is unique to Latter Day Saint modern revelation that we find the exact phrasing of this in scripture. Example: Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end."

All three are infinite beings. I think that point is fairly obvious and clear. All three have always existed and are eternal beings. Is it essential for us to establish that they have always been as they are right now? Perhaps, and the biggest difficulty is explaining the answer in such a way as can be comprehended.

When we begin to consider beings who exist outside of the bounds of linear time, the rules change greatly. What the Father is, he always has been, because it is that now. What the Son is, he always has been because he is that now. What the Holy Ghost is he always has been because he is that now.

As we understand it, the Father progressed to become infinite, eternal and existing outside the bounds of time as we understand it. Ascension to becoming what Our Heavenly Father now involves arriving at a level of existence for which linear time and the notions of the finiteness of oneself cease to exist. He became eternal, a change that runs infinitely in both directions in linear time. We cannot hope to begin to really comprehend it unless and until we become it.

The all-important matter at the core of things comes down to this: What is humankind? Are humans merely the most favored pets of the Creator, or are we His children? Are we made "in His image and after His likeness" or aren't we? The scriptures describe God as our Father. They teach us to call him Father when we pray to him. Why? Is it a lie or merely a white lie in a metaphor to help us feel closer than we truly are to God? Are we commanded to complete an impossible task when we are commanded to be like Christ like the Father?

The reward for the righteous in heaven constantly invokes crowns, thrones, powers, etc. Both Trinitarian and Latter Day Saint will readily agree that the righteous are destined to become something indescribably glorious and great. For the Latter Day Saint, the highest goal is quite simple: To grow up to be just like our Father in Heaven. The Trinitarian envisions an end state of becoming "godly" (odd choice of wording, but that is how they refer to it) and ascending above all the angels in power and authority -- but because they must ultimately concede that because God and man are different species (for lack of a better word), then whatever we become after receiving of the heavenly reward of eternal life, we are ultimately nothing like God.

Everything hinges upon whether we are literally children of God and made in His image or not. If we are, then the Triune God, while landing very close to the mark, cannot be an accurate description of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If we are His children literally, then it's simple enough to conclude that Father once was as we are now, and what God is now, we may one day become. We are merely little children in the eternal scheme of things, and we've got a long ways to go to grow up to be like Our Father. In the end, it is no offense to a parent to see his children grow up to be adults -- and thereby becoming their parent's equals in standing.

It seems to me that the Trinitarian view of the relationship of God and man is much like the relationship I have with my two dogs. My wife and I love them. They're spoiled and they get to sleep in the same bed as we do. We love them very much and we'll be heartbroken when they eventually grow old and die. In a way, we think of them as our children. But at the end of the day, they're dogs and we're humans, and they are simply not truly our children. My wife is expecting our first child currently. (By the way, IT'S A BOY!!) That baby truly will be my son in every sense of the word. I will never love my dogs as much as I love my son. My dogs and I will never connect nor understand one another because ultimately we're just two different animals. Yet my son and I can connect more deeply and completely than I ever could with my dogs.

The Trinitarian viewpoint has me casting aside the notion that I'm really God's son, and tells me to accept that I'm merely a very much loved pet of the master (like our dogs). Envisioning a downgrade of my relationship with Heavenly Father in this fashion is very difficult, as you might imagine.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be heading in the direction and you're making some good counterpoints here, but I think I'll need better clarification on some of it.

Sure. First off, if you take away verse 19, I think the sermon is very clear. Jesus has power to "quicken" or bring life because it is a power his Father has given him. In addition to that, Jesus can use his own discretion about the use of such power because his Father has granted him Judgement also. This was the case of his healing the invalid, and telling him to carry his cot on the Sabbath. These same principles are then broadly applied to refer to a general resurrection, when the dead will hear his voice and be quickened. Now add verse 19 back into this context, and you still have the exact same framework. Jesus has power to to quicken the man's lame legs (this is the Father's power given to him). He has authority to command his legs to walk, and authority to tell the man to carry his cot (this is the Father's authority, who's Sabbath it is). And if onlookers have a problem with this, they will really have a problem when Jesus judges the dead (the Father's authority and work) and resurrects them (the Father's power and work).

So first thing, I don't think you've met the burden to show that this section includes Jesus' own death and resurrection.

That being said, I'm in a sporting mood so I'll continue with the assumption that you post something stronger.

"You've mentioned that the Son lays down his life. Has the Father ever stopped a person's life?" Wouldn't the correct parallel for the Son laying down His life be that the Father at some point in time having laid down his life as well? I don't quite follow, "Lay down my life = Stop somebody else's life." Or am I misreading?

You're right that it's not exactly the same. But the principles are still the same whether it's your own life or someone else's. The heart must stop.

I took a second look at John 5. Nowhere in this passage is death mentioned except to segue to the resurrection theme. "The Son lays down his life" is only used in connection with this chapter in Joseph Smith's sermon. So I'm willing to go so far as to show some similarities between the work that is traditionally associated with the Father (stopping of life), but not so far as to what is generally considered blasphemy by our Christian friends (the Father died at some point). For this point, you need to first show that 1) Jesus mentions here that he has power to take life (or at least his Father does - and this can be something as simple as a withering in the same general sense as quickening), and 2) Jesus mentions that he has power to give up his own life. Once you get that far, I may be more willing to yield some space on this point.

"You have Life in Yourself. Command your body to rise, the same as you did to Lazarus, and this time animate it with Your everlasting wellspring of Life!" Okay but I don't see where that precludes the Father from having done the same thing at some point. The only difficulty is sorting out where and how. We know it didn't happen on this earth because if it had then Christ's resurrection would have served no purpose. Now in Hebrews 11:3 we find mention of "worlds" in the plural. So one good logical conclusion, going just from the Bible alone, is that God the Father did the same works as Christ, but on some other world.

The logical conclusion from the Bible alone, is that Jesus communicated directly with his Father; that his Father showed him how to judge righteously; that his Father showed him the principles of Life and how to use it to raise the dead; and (from the Hebrews verse you just added) that many worlds were created (not really tied in with John 5).

Addressing your Hebrews 11 reference, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about other worlds being peopled. So if you see that in verse 3, you are adding that in yourself.

Addressing John 5, the Son resurrecting himself in no way precludes the Father from having done the same. But you cannot arrive at that conclusion from the Bible alone, and working only within the biblical text was a limitation that you placed on your argument from the start.

I've never liked sidestepping any passage of scripture. There's a stubborn streak in me that says that the proper understanding is in that very passage, I just need to dig it out. Diverging to another passage that says "Jesus didn't raise himself, the Father did it" opens to door to the merry chaos of a good ol' Bible-bash session -- since a significant number of passages elsewhere say that Christ rose himself up from the dead. But it's a clever play.

I mentioned it because I am not a Trinitarian. So I don't know what other churches teach concerning who raised Jesus from the dead. Come to think of it, I'm not too sure I know the official LDS stance on who raised Jesus from the dead (maybe the start of another thread?). But for any religion that feels there's enough in the Bible to definitively conclude that the Father resurrected the Son, you'll have to address that argument as well. And it may be as simple as saying, "The Bible says the Son resurrected himself."

Finally, I think you're argument stated elsewhere in this thread applies nicely here. (edits in bold).

Are the notions of "ex nihilo creation" The King Follett Discourse leading you to confusion here? You have to set your notions of creation from nothing kfd aside if you want to understand LDS traditional Christian teachings. The ideas that "God spoke and the universe materialized out of nothing" "God is an Exalted Man"or "God spoke and the world appeared out of nothing." "The Father laid down his life and took it up again" are not only completely baffling to most any Latter Day Saint mainstream Christian, but it's not found anywhere in the Bible. If you already believed in creation out of nothing Exalted Man-God, then of course you see it there. But if you had no notion of creation out of nothing a resurrected God the Father, there is no passage that would lead you to conclude beyond all doubt that this was how "creation" occurred Jesus did what he saw the Father do and indeed the intended meaning of the word "create." John 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

It was officially determined as doctrine in 325 AD due to multiple council meetings beforehand.

The version of this doctrine used today, the real one not the multiple versions many trinitarian-Christians bring up because they don't quite know what the entirety of this "doctrine" is, goes back to about 381 AD when the Athanasian Creed was formulated. I'm not saying no trinitarian knows what the trinity really teaches but I have heard trinitarians give multiple versions of it; sometimes in the form of modalism. Here are the creeds so you can understand the official trinity:

Nicene Creed: We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Athanasian Creed: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share