Trinity

[Guest]

I don't see how I am created as an analogy. Man exists with a body, soul and spirit, that is how he is created. Could it not be considered that this image (a triunity image) has some similarity to God's triunity image?

No, this is not correct.

First of all, man has body and spirit. Soul is the combination of the two. So, you don't have a triunity... just two.

Secondly, even if we scratch that first statement, you still can't relate that to the Trinity because your body and your spirt is the same person. God is definitely 3 persons - both Trinitarians and LDS agree that much.

[Maureen]

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

[Guest]

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

That verse doesn't mean you are a triune.

Okay, I guess the easiest way to explain what I'm trying to say is to ask you this question...

What is a soul?

[Maureen]

What is a soul?

The soul gives man his personality, self-awareness, rationality, his conscious and subconscious minds, a range of emotions and his will.

[prisonchaplain]

Thats the classic definition, however I would challange you to ask 5 members of your congregation and see what they come up with on their own. Or what I did, I was on a Christian (non-LDS) message board frequented by people of many faiths and I asked them to define the "Trinity" Out of about 30 replies, not one was a duplicate.

Its a confusing concept for most people.

IMHO church instruction/education is a challenge. Sunday mornings are meant to explain the Good News to seekers, and to encourage and motivate the faithful. Often, even classes are geared towards the practical and applicable, rather than foundational doctrines. So, if you speak to a typical three-Sundays-a-month, main-church-service-only kinda Christian, then you might get some rather theologically anemic answers. But, to be fair, if I were to ask one of the 60% of LDS who are inactive, or if I were to ask an adult convert who attends the ward most Sundays for one or two of the three sessions, might I not also get some partial or misleading answers to doctrinal questions. Most likely, I'd get what you get, "Look...if you really want to know talk to my pastor/bishop/hometeacher, etc."

[Vanhin]

I am LDS, and I believe that God the Father and God the Son, are both infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, and I believe the spirits of mankind are co-eternal with God. I believe that the scriptures make this plainly clear.

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them...

...Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:17-19,28)

According to Joseph Smith's logic (which I concur with), if there was a beginning to something, there must also be an end to it. If true at all, the same must be true for God, his being and his tenure, and also that of His Only Begotten.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Faded]

I've asked some LDS on this forum, do you believe the Godhead is 3 Gods or 1 God and some have said both. That can be confusing, how is it possible to see both?

M.

Comes down to one simple thing really. God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost repeatedly point to their united-ness. While Eloheim (the Hebrew word for God throughout the Bible) actually does mean "Gods" their consistently focus is on their unity and virtually never focus on their separateness. They are exactly alike. Each plays an indispensable role in everything. If you're talking to one, you're talking to all three.

Trinitarians like to express their disagreement and often contempt for the LDS doctrine about god by calling it "three gods" and so forth. That is not verbiage we ever use to describe the Godhead. If God wants the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be referred to as "One Eternal God without end" then it only seems appropriate to follow suit. Latter Day Saints and Trinitarians both know what they mean when they say "One Eternal God" -- i suppose that would be "One Eternal Gods" if we're going from the Hebrew "Eloheim."

As some have already pointed out, the two viewpoints are extremely similar. The differences come when we apply these differing concepts of God to Christian Doctrine.

Latter Day Saints believe they are eternal beings who are literal offspring of God, our Father. As such, we believe that it is possible for Him to make us grow up to be like our Father. To Trinitarians, their God must be acknowledged to be of a different species than humankind, and the conclusion they come to is that they will eternally be different from God, and eternally unlike him. They can become "Godlike" but never like God. This too has always greatly confused me. I'm not really sure what non-LDS Christians expect to receive for their eternal reward, and I haven't ever come across a good explanation of it.

[Faded]

IMHO church instruction/education is a challenge. Sunday mornings are meant to explain the Good News to seekers, and to encourage and motivate the faithful. Often, even classes are geared towards the practical and applicable, rather than foundational doctrines. So, if you speak to a typical three-Sundays-a-month, main-church-service-only kinda Christian, then you might get some rather theologically anemic answers. But, to be fair, if I were to ask one of the 60% of LDS who are inactive, or if I were to ask an adult convert who attends the ward most Sundays for one or two of the three sessions, might I not also get some partial or misleading answers to doctrinal questions. Most likely, I'd get what you get, "Look...if you really want to know talk to my pastor/bishop/hometeacher, etc."

Right or wrong (and we'll undoubtedly end up agreeing to disagree), I think that those teaching the Trinity have a much more difficult task before them. They are teaching that God is three separate and persons, but all one and the same being -- which is a logical impossibility. So the typical every day person will have an impossibly difficult time wrapping their mind around the Trinity. They are being asked to accept that three people are one being, yet they are three separate and distinct people at the same time.

The Godhead is simple and logical. That means that teaching it is very straightforward and doesn't involve any logically impossible details. So you can teach it to a 4 year old and they'll understand it well enough.

This is not me saying, "Mine is better than yours." This is me saying that Latter Day Saint educators and parents have a one foot fence to navigate across. Trinity educators have a 50 wall to try to leap across. For that reason, equal amounts of time educating their respective flocks about the nature of God will yield vastly different results.

So I guess what I'm really saying is that it's not 100% for lack of trying on the part of Priests and Pastors. They just have a really difficult task before them.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Faded

[Jason_J]

Right or wrong (and we'll undoubtedly end up agreeing to disagree), I think that those teaching the Trinity have a much more difficult task before them. They are teaching that God is three separate and persons, but all one and the same being -- which is a logical impossibility. So the typical every day person will have an impossibly difficult time wrapping their mind around the Trinity. They are being asked to accept that three people are one person and three people at the same time.

(emphasis added)

No they are not! Trinitarians are not being asked to accept that three people are one person and three people at the same time. The closest thing to what you describe is modalism which is not the Trinity. Trinitarians are asked to accept that there are three distinct Persons who are one in being (not one person). The issue here is whether one understands what "being" and "person" refer to, in philosophical discourse.

I am curious, could you define what you think Trinitarians mean when they state that the three persons are one "being" (though I think you already did, since you state that it means "one person"), specifically focusing on the "one being" part? It seems as if you are equating "being" with "person" (which is what we do in modern language), and that is not what Trinitarians do when talking about three distinct persons being "one Being/one in being/of one substance/of one essence/of one divine nature".

One needs to remember that the Trinity doctrine originated over 1000 years ago, in a non-English world, and going back to the terminology in question, in the original language(s) is also helpful, especially when we cannot apply modern English language assumptions (such as person=being) to the doctrine. "Being" is the translation of "ousia" in the Greek, which was also translated as "substantia" in Latin. Neither word is referring to "person", so it is clear that the Trinity is not referring to three persons that are also one person, but three persons that are of one essence or nature (Greek "ousia").

Please see my previous posts in this thread as well, I hope they are helpful.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Jason_J

[Faded]

I am curious, could you define what you think Trinitarians mean when they state that the three persons are one "being" (though I think you already did, since you state that it means "one person"), specifically focusing on the "one being" part?

This is the trouble with the many centuries of debate. You say something slightly off and it's heretically wrong sometimes.

I knew when I said it that the wording wasn't right. "Three people, one being." is the accepted phrase. But how can you state that in simple terms so that a completely uninitiated non-Christian would understand it? But I'll edit the statement so as to not offend. I was trying to think of a young child and how to explain it to them. "Being" is awfully obscure and could very well be understood as "person" to a somebody hearing the explanation for the first time. And that would result in them understanding it completely wrong. Make sense?

What do I think Trinitarians mean? That there is a singular being called God. That singular being contains three separate and distinct people.

My apologies if I have offended.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

Faded, trinitarians say God is one, yet is three persons, and that this is a divine mystery. Skeptics say, "Fine way to spiritualize a logical impossibility." However, the LDS Godhead is similar. Many in your movement want so very much to say that they are monotheists. We worship one Godhead--one God. Well yes, there are three...or perhaps and infinity of Gods (getting into LDS speculation here, I know)...but we worship only one. Oh, so you're henotheists? Well, no, we really are monotheists (although some LDS scholars except the henotheist label).

The Bible supports our alleged logical impossiblity, so I stick with it until God reveals otherwise to me. Likewise, as Vanhin pointed out, your theology works fine if the LDS canon is correct.

[Jason_J]

This is the trouble with the many centuries of debate. You say something slightly off and it's heretically wrong sometimes.

I knew when I said it that the wording wasn't right. "Three people, one being." is the accepted phrase. But how can you state that in simple terms so that a completely uninitiated non-Christian would understand it? But I'll edit the statement so as to not offend. I was trying to think of a young child and how to explain it to them. "Being" is awfully obscure and could very well be understood as "person" to a person hearing the explanation for the first time.

What do I think Trinitarians mean? That there is a singular being called God. That singular being contains three separate and distinct people.

I agree, the frequent problem is that, in modern language, "being" is equivalent to person", where someone may say "human being" or "person" and be referring to the same thing. Therefore, when a Trinitarian says that there are three distinct persons that are "one being" (more frequently "one in being"), it may be assumed by non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians alike (again from the POV of modern terminology) that it is saying that there are three persons that are also one person, which is illogical.

The Greek word "ousia" is the word that is translated as "being". Ousia was translated into Latin as "substantia", which gives the English "substance" (i'm sure you've heard about this "substance" in relation to the Trinity). It is basically referring to "essence" or "nature", and not person. Therefore, in very simple terms, it is correct to say that the Trinity refers to the belief in three divine, distinct Persons who are of the same divine nature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

" In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

also:

"254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. "

Perhaps these wikipedia pages are helpful:

Ousia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Substance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Faded]

Faded, trinitarians say God is one, yet is three persons, and that this is a divine mystery. Skeptics say, "Fine way to spiritualize a logical impossibility." However, the LDS Godhead is similar. Many in your movement want so very much to say that they are monotheists. We worship one Godhead--one God. Well yes, there are three...or perhaps and infinity of Gods (getting into LDS speculation here, I know)...but we worship only one. Oh, so you're henotheists? Well, no, we really are monotheists (although some LDS scholars except the henotheist label).

LOL, thanks for kinda proving my point. Like I said, those that disagree with the LDS point of view get very, very focused on "three Gods" and "polytheism" and so forth because this is what they find troubling about our teachings.

I think we both know that both of us like our respective viewpoints and that neither of us is going to change our mind based upon this thread.

What I'm trying to get across is that Trinitarian religious leaders have their work cut out for them. Their teaching is hard to understand and those that they teach are going to be a tad bit slow to comprehend what they are being taught. That's all I'm saying.

The Bible supports our alleged logical impossiblity, so I stick with it until God reveals otherwise to me. Likewise, as Vanhin pointed out, your theology works fine if the LDS canon is correct.

Depending on interpretation, the Bible can be used equally well to thoroughly refute and deny both viewpoints. That's why I long since gave up on the idea of trying to "Bible-Bash" on the point.

[Faded]

I agree, the frequent problem is that, in modern language, "being" is equivalent to person", where someone may say "human being" or "person" and be referring to the same thing. Therefore, when a Trinitarian says that there are three distinct persons that are "one being" (more frequently "one in being"), it may be assumed by non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians alike (again from the POV of modern terminology) that it is saying that there are three persons that are also one person, which is illogical.

The Greek word "ousia" is the word that is translated as "being". Ousia was translated into Latin as "substantia", which gives the English "substance" (i'm sure you've heard about this "substance" in relation to the Trinity). It is basically referring to "essence" or "nature", and not person. Therefore, in very simple terms, it is correct to say that the Trinity refers to the belief in three divine, distinct Persons who are of the same divine nature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

" In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

also:

"254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. "

Perhaps these wikipedia pages are helpful:

Ousia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Substance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can I offer this summary: "It's complicated."

Fair?

I have done and will continue to do my best to understand the Trinity even if I do disagree with it. No harm in understanding one another, right?

[Jason_J]

Can I offer this summary: "It's complicated."

Fair?

I have done and will continue to do my best to understand the Trinity even if I do disagree with it. No harm in understanding one another, right?

I would say that it's less complicated than some make it, especially when the terminology is understood (and put in its proper ancient context, from where it came from).

I agree, understanding a position, even if you don't agree with it, is important. As a LDS church investigator, I agree more with the Godhead (including a corporeal Father), however I think that it is important for LDS that argue against the Trinity to understand what the Trinity is referring to, and understand words such as "being" and "person", so that they are not arguing against a strawman. The same goes for many Trinitarians themselves, who may explain it as modalism or unitarianism, which confuses non-Trinitarians who may not know what those theologies are.

[Faded]

I would say that it's less complicated than some make it, especially when the terminology is understood (and put in its proper ancient context, from where it came from).

I agree, understanding a position, even if you don't agree with it, is important. As a LDS church investigator, I agree more with the Godhead (including a corporeal Father), however I think that it is important for LDS that argue against the Trinity to understand what the Trinity is referring to, and understand words such as "being" and "person", so that they are not arguing against a strawman. The same goes for many Trinitarians themselves, who may explain it as modalism or unitarianism, which confuses non-Trinitarians who may not know what those theologies are.

Often, Trinity vs Godhead ends up being debated like this:

Trinitarian debates Trinity vs Arianism.

Latter Day Saint debates Godhead vs either Unitarianism or Modalism (almost never the actual Trinity.)

Comes down to a lack of trying to understand each other.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

In discussing the nature of God, who is more advanced, and in every way our Superior, we can expect to have some aspects of our doctrine that are beyond our ability to fathom or comprehend. To say it's complicated makes it sound too much like "confusing." What we both believe is easy on the surface.

LDS: The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are three distinct personages, completely separate, and yet are united in purpose as one Godhead.

Trinitarians: They are three distinct persons, but are one essentially and in substance, alone as God eternal.

It may be correct to say that Trinitarians struggle to comprehend the three persons as one God. It is equally true that LDS struggle to explain how they are monotheists, when the bulk of their doctrine seems so very polytheistic (or at least henotheistic).

We might all point to Scripture, the granduer of deity that is beyond full human comprehension, and to the personal witness in our Spirits that what our prophets and teachers and leaders have taught is God's truth. NO, we don't necessarily seek to convert here--merely to show the plausibility of our views to "the other," and to gain some understanding of one another. And again...we all agree...it's the Holy Ghost that does the converting.

[WillowTheWhisp]

So, are you now telling me that when the Catholic priest taught that God took upon himself human form and came to live on earth in the body of Jesus Christ that what he was saying there is not actually Catholic doctrine?

[pyxiwulf]

18 years of strict catholic upbringing, 12yrs of catholic school, and this thread, and I still have no idea what the trinity is.

[Jason_J]

So, are you now telling me that when the Catholic priest taught that God took upon himself human form and came to live on earth in the body of Jesus Christ that what he was saying there is not actually Catholic doctrine?

Catholics believe the same thing that LDS do: that the pre-existent Jesus (God the Son) incarnated on the earth.

[Jason_J]

18 years of strict catholic upbringing, 12yrs of catholic school, and this thread, and I still have no idea what the trinity is.

The Trinity: The belief that there are three distinct, Divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are of the same divine nature, making them one God (since they are of the same one divine nature).

Now you know what the Trinity is.

[Faded]

In discussing the nature of God, who is more advanced, and in every way our Superior, we can expect to have some aspects of our doctrine that are beyond our ability to fathom or comprehend. To say it's complicated makes it sound too much like "confusing." What we both believe is easy on the surface.

By saying "It's complicated" I'm certainly not trying to insult those that do believe in the Trinity.

Simple answers are not always right answers, just as complicated answers are not always right answers. The complexity or lack of complexity of any given thing has no bearing whatsoever upon whether it is right or wrong. A Latter-Day Saint could point to how easily they can understand their idea of God, and say that's proof that they're right. Likewise, the Trinitarian can point out that the unfathomable nature of the Trinity, by it's very nature proves them to be correct because we are repeatedly told how incomprehensible God is in the scriptures. But ultimately, simplicity or complexity are not valid measures of truthfulness.

It's like you said PC, LDS accept the Godhead as a valid explanation because we believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that God explained his nature (insofar as it can be comprehended of course) to Joseph. Trinitarians believe that their point of view is the original point of view taught by Christ and the Apostles. Neither point of view is depending greatly upon proving their point scriptural, scientifically or in any other way. Neither side can offer absolute certainty that their foundational assumption is actually correct. In the end, you have to take it to God in both cases.

It may be correct to say that Trinitarians struggle to comprehend the three persons as one God. It is equally true that LDS struggle to explain how they are monotheists, when the bulk of their doctrine seems so very polytheistic (or at least henotheistic).

Jewish scholars in turn tend to view the Trinity as thinly veiled polytheism. I do find it interesting that in conversation with Jewish thinkers and other Unitarianists, defenders of the Trinity sound a lot like Latter Day Saints defending the Godhead. It's one of many aspects of the debate that makes me feel that at the most basic level, we're not all that different after all.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Catholics believe the same thing that LDS do: that the pre-existent Jesus (God the Son) incarnated on the earth.

I was RC for a while before finding the LDS church and I was never taught that. I was taught that God became flesh as Jesus Christ hence Mary being referred to as the Mother of God. When I queried how someone could become his own son I was told it was a divine mystery. There was certainly nothing about three separate beings existing from eternity. If that is Catholic doctrine then why are so many Catholics critical of it in LDS beliefs?

[Jason_J]

I was RC for a while before finding the LDS church and I was never taught that. I was taught that God became flesh as Jesus Christ hence Mary being referred to as the Mother of God. When I queried how someone could become his own son I was told it was a divine mystery. There was certainly nothing about three separate beings existing from eternity. If that is Catholic doctrine then why are so many Catholics critical of it in LDS beliefs?

Willow I'm about to go to work, so I can't be long. Please read my previous posts, paying attention to the word "being". God did become flesh, however which Person of the Trinity did? God the Son (i.e. Jesus Christ before (and during and after) His incarnation). The Trinity by definition is the belief in three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are not each other (i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, etc.). Mary is referred to as the "mother of God" because she gave birth to God the Son, Jesus Christ, who did not cease being divine when He came to the earth. She did not give birth to the Father, since again, the Trinity, by definition, is the belief in three distinct Persons.

Jesus was not "his own son", since again, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. LDS believe the same thing. It was the Son that incarnated, not the Father.

It's all right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

[WillowTheWhisp]

This is really strange because this is what I actually used to think 'Trinity' was all about. I remember long ago a Pentecostal friend of mine asking me if LDS believed in the Trinity. This was long before I joined the church and my reply was in the affirmative because I had learned of the LDS belief in 3 separate beings which was what I believed and thought was meant by Trinity (like trio) but the Catholic priest told me that belief was heresy.