How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[Vanhin]

What is it that seems so obvious? That Jesus and the Father are not both God? It's my understanding that LDS teaching about Jesus is not subordinationism--am I wrong? Jesus was repeatedly accused of claiming to be God. He called himself the I AM. He accepted Thomas' worship. To me and the 2.2 billion trinitarians in the world today, Christ's deity is just as self-evident.

They certainly did have the same purpose. Jesus obeyed his Father unto death. He did not "want" to. But he did. His dad asked him to.

None of those passages dissuade us from believing that Jesus was also one with the Father in his Godhood. Even naturalistic thinking makes this obvious to me. We beget what we are. How could the one and only Son of God be anything other than what God is?

Good stuff my friend. Hey I am a latter-day saint who believes in the divinity of Christ. I have said as much many times. I worship the Father in His name, and I worship the Son as the Redeemer of mankind.

Although clearly our doctrine is that Christ is subordinate to the Father. It is the Father's will that prevails. It is His will that Christ submitted to, and we must submit to His will to become one with them. The scriptures are plain on that.

...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

I especially like the last paragraph you wrote. That is what Justin Martyr taught concerning the divinity of Christ.

...when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same." (Dialogue with Trypho, 128)

A fire kindled from the source fire (God), does not diminish the source, which maintains it's size and glory, yet the offspring is wholly distinct fire and just as glorious. I think Justin would agree that the more fires that are kindled from the source, the more the source is glorified. He did say "many can be kindled" in the above quotation. But we'll have to wait to ask him for sure. We certainly believe such doctrine.

Justin argued that the Father and the Son are numerically distinct, yet one in will, the Son being subordinate to the Father. I think his view on the nature of the Godhead is pretty close to ours.

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

And one more to top things off.

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even [a?] God." (First Apology, 63)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Perhaps Jesus was being coy. You call me good--you're right--I am God! As for greatness, sons defer to their fathers in most cultures. It's a matter of authority and respect, not quality of species.

Well, I do think that is it. He is saying just that - that He is God. Because we know Jesus is sinless - and therefore good. But he is not His Father and our (spirits) Father, whom he said to be greater than himself. That wouldn't make much sense.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 14, 2011 by Vanhin

[Backroads]

Thank-you for the Trinity explanations. I suddenly recall a high school friend describing it using an egg, which was effective.

As for perception of accusations, lets all remember it's a choice to be offended.

[prisonchaplain]

Well, I do think that is it. He is saying just that - that He is God. Because we know Jesus is sinless - and therefore good. But he is not His Father and our (spirits) Father, whom he said to be greater than himself. That wouldn't make much sense.

Regards,

Vanhin

I think we're working off different understandings of subordinate. What Bishop Arius, and what Jehovah's Witnesses today, mean by it is that Jesus is something less than the Father. Perhaps the Archangel Michael? A god? But not Jehovah God, the Almighty.

Another nuance is that trinitarians are not modalists. We do believe Jesus is "substantially" or "essentially" one with the Father. However, we recognize that He is a distinct person.

The driving purpose of those words is to insist on our monotheism. Three persons, but one and only and never more than one God for the entire world. That's the teaching. Where the controversy comes in is when the faithful try to answer what God has not revealed: how can that be?

Maureen calls it a paradox. Catholics speak of the divine mystery. I simply say the Bible says there are three persons called God, but only one God. So, "they" are "Him."

[mrmarklin]

Personally I have never quite grasped the concept of the Trinity. Would someone mind explaining it to me?

It's a bunch of Greek gobbledygook, and cannot be explained.

The closest I've ever heard is to compare the Godhead to an egg, with three separate parts(yolk, white, and shell) but still the same essence. Does that make sense?? I thought not.

[Jbdf]

First quick comment: Arius was not a bishop. When the controversy broke out, he was only a presbyter (elder) who was having a theological dispute with the Alexandrian bishop Alexander. Arius was deposed from his position, despite having desired to become the bishop of Alexandria himself. When Alexander died, he was succeeded in the bishopric by Athanasius, not Arius. (I suddenly feel the urge to begin to chant the troparion to Athanasius: "O holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthodoxy you refuted the heretical nonsense of Arius......", heh.)

As prisonchaplain points out, Vanhin is right to say that Jesus is not the Father, but incorrect to seemingly assume that this is what the doctrine of the Trinity says. Trinitarians - well, ones who actually know what that means, anyway - do not believe that Jesus is the Father. Trinitarians believe that there is one and only one God, the God of Israel, and that any claim that there are other gods aside from that God is false. Trinitarians also believe that this God's identity is broader than just one person; this God's identity also includes God's eternal Word and God's eternal Spirit, who with him are one God. This allows God, in God's very self, to be eternal community and eternal, self-sufficient Love. But the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons; the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The first Synod of Toledo, held in the year 400, affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity by talking about "one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit", but went on to add that "the Son is not the Father", and later added: "If anyone says and believes that God the Son is the same person as the Father or the Paraclete, let him be anathema." Later - 151 years later, to be precise - Justinian mentioned in an edict that God is "one according to the principle of essence or Godhead, but three according to the properties or hypostases or prosopa", the latter two Greek words indicating something roughly the same as 'distinct persons'. A later edict by Heraclius in 638 specifically stressed that Christians who believe in the Trinity do not "eliminate the distinction of persons". In 675, the eleventh Synod of Toledo declared of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that "the three are one, that is, in nature, not in person". The thirteenth-century Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas, in Summa contra Gentiles 4.5.5, stressed that "God the Father is not himself the Son, but the Son is other than he, and the Father is other than the Son". Later on, a seventeenth-century metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, confessed that in the Trinity there are "three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". This is the mainstream Christian faith that has been affirmed by Christians for well over 1500 years, and is upheld by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants, even though unfortunately so little emphasis is placed on accurately teaching it in Protestant denominations that even many clergy are unnecessarily confused.

As for some of the Bible verses that have been bandied around, let's all please remember that over the past 1700 years and more, Christian theologians, philosophers, biblical commentators, and preachers have not mysteriously forgotten that certain parts of the Bible exist. It just isn't the case that there are no Trinitarian approaches to certain passages; even if the average lay Christian in, say, a Protestant church has no idea what to do with a certain verse, that doesn't mean that a wealth of answers won't be found in the works of patristic and medieval thinkers, to say nothing of modern biblical scholarship and theology.

When it comes to Luke 18:19, for instance, modern commentators equipped with an understanding of how first-century Mediterranean cultures worked can see that people commonly deflected accurate compliments as a way of averting envy in certain situations, especially because a compliment could be used to mount a challenge. Hence, biblical scholar Bruce J. Malina notes that: "While claims to worth needed public acknowledgement in the world of Jesus, words of praise could kill. Hence we would expect people to be wary of compliments and other public expressions of a person's superior worth. Thus Jesus simply avoids envy by refusing the compliment 'Good Teacher.' He properly responds, 'Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good but God alone' (Mark 10:18)" (Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 126). And prisonchaplain's insights also help us to understand why the Gospel author might have presented him as deflecting it in the way that he did.

With regard to John 14:28, one standard approach to this verse since at least the Arian controversy has been to note that orthodox Christians believe that Christ after the incarnation has two natures, divine and human. Christ is fully and truly God, but he is also fully and truly human, and while certain things are said about him as God, others are said about him as human. And while as God he might well be fully equal to the Father, as human he would appropriately confess the Father as greater and worship the Father as God. For one notable fifth-century use of this approach, Leo the Great's Tome remarks that "it does not belong to the same nature to say 'I and the Father are one,' and to say 'The Father is greater than I.' For although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another. For it is from us that he gets a humanity which is less than the Father; it is from the Father that he gets a divinity which is equal to the Father". Still, even if we don't understand it by making reference to the two natures, there's nothing incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity in saying that, in some sense, the Father is 'greater' than the Son. Perhaps the two are equal in essence, but still the Father is 'greater' than the Son in being unbegotten rather than begotten. Thus, in the year 343, a synod meeting in Sardica commented on this verse that "no one ever denies that the Father is greater than the Son, not because of another substance, not because of difference, but because the very name itself of the Father is greater than that of the Son".

Also, a final quick note on John 17:22. In many samples of Jewish literature of that period, there was an emphasis on the fittingness of one X corresponding to the one God - so, one temple, one Israel, one harmony of faith, etc. See the similar echoes in Ephesians 4:4-6. As modern biblical scholar Richard Bauckham points out, this may provide some very relevant background for understanding John 17. It is because of the intimate interpersonal unity within the one God - as exemplified by the intimate union of the Father and the Son - that it would be highly improper for the people of that one God to fail to stand united. The only proper response of God's people to the oneness of God is to manifest the corresponding oneness of God's chosen people. (A response, alas, that has so often been neglected on the part of God's people.)

[mrmarklin]

Thanks Jbdf for this exposition. I still don't understand it, but that's not your fault.

[Elphaba]

The closest I've ever heard is to compare the Godhead to an egg, with three separate parts(yolk, white, and shell) but still the same essence. Does that make sense?? I thought not.

Actually, that does make it clearer to me.

Elphaba

[Vanhin]

Jdbf,

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that.

Would you say that the primary reasoning for the concept of the Holy Trinity stems from the apparently obvious contradiction found in the Bible where it teaches that there is only one true God on the one hand, and on the other hand, it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each a God? So, the doctrine of the Triune God attempts to settle the contradiction, and yet still have both sides of the contradiction be true. The glue that makes this concept seemingly work is the nature or essence shared by members of the Godhead - they being of the same exact nature are thus one God not three. This in the minds of Trinitarians is sufficient to maintain their monotheism. Is that a fair assessment?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Jbdf]

Jdbf,

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that.

Would you say that the primary reasoning for the concept of the Holy Trinity stems from the apparently obvious contradiction found in the Bible where it teaches that there is only one true God on the one hand, and on the other hand, it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each a God? So, the doctrine of the Triune God attempts to settle the contradiction, and yet still have both sides of the contradiction be true. The glue that makes this concept seemingly work is the nature or essence shared by members of the Godhead - they being of the same exact nature are thus one God not three. This in the minds of Trinitarians is sufficient to maintain their monotheism. Is that a fair assessment?

Regards,

Vanhin

That's definitely in the ballpark. :) For my part, I wouldn't use the word "contradiction", but definitely an apparent paradox or tension for sure. I think it captures some of the later approach and the questions that were being asked later on. [Note in retrospect: the rest of this post is rambling]

In the New Testament period, it wasn't a worry because many Christians of that period were able to draw chiefly on the thought-categories of Second Temple Judaism, which already was able to accomodate multiple 'figures' within the identity of God: namely, certain of his attributes, such as his Word, Wisdom, Spirit, Torah, and Shekhinah. There was a sense of distinctness in some literature - or, at least, a depiction of distinctness within a unity of identity. Thus, the earliest Christians were able to talk about the divinity of Jesus within a staunchly monotheistic context in several ways. First, they could of course refer to him with the title 'God' or talking about him as having the fullness of deity dwelling in him, which they did. They could also cast Jesus in the role of one or more of those personified divine attributes by calling him 'Word' or 'Wisdom', or by using allusions to other texts of the time to depict him in that sort of role - and they did both there as well. And a third way they could go was to take certain motifs that marked off God's uniqueness and apply them to Jesus as well: things like a role in creation and a future role in judgment, or eternity, or a seat on the exalted throne of God, or giving him the name of God - and they did all of those as well. The effect made rather clear that Jesus was to be understood as included within God's eternal identity, but not in a way exclusive of the Father, whom the NT authors understood to be the God of Israel. They didn't need to do much with the Spirit, since the Spirit was already understood as included in God's identity, and all that was really necessary was to depict the Spirit as distinct by, say, using triadic formulas about Father, Son, and Spirit, or about God and Jesus and the Spirit - such as we have in Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and so forth (and see also Galatians 4:6).

Later on, it came to pass that Christians were not so familiar with the cultural background of a lot of these affirmations, but still had some sort of grasp of the general gist. This left those Christians in a position of both trying to understand what they'd received and also to somehow match it with conceptual language borrowed from the intellectual culture of the time, using words such as ousia, hypostasis, physis, prosopon, and substantia and persona. It took a while to get things sorted out adequately. Some of the second-century apologists, for instance, were heavily influenced by Stoicism in their approach to the Logos, or Word. (Justin Martyr is one example of that.) One early struggle that the church had to endure was a fight against various Gnostics and Docetists who wanted to portray Jesus as a heavenly figure who had only appeared to be human, but who really had nothing to do with matter - or else who had entered into matter in order to free us from it through secret teachings for the elite. They drew heavily on Greek ideas to the exclusion of the church's Jewish heritage, often vilifying the Jewish god for having created matter and seeing the Father as a higher god who had sent Christ, one of the intermediate emanations or 'aeons', to free us from the prison of matter that the Jewish god, the 'demiurge' (sometimes named 'Yaldabaoth' in Gnostic literature), had trapped us in. The mainstream church, in contrast, stuck by its Jewish heritage in the Old Testament and rejected those teachings, continuing to associate the Father and the God of Israel who had created heaven and earth. One of the next movements that arose were movements that wanted to resolve the thorny questions of oneness and threeness in the Godhead by just collapsing the threeness down and saying that the one God had revealed himself in different guises or roles. Some of the known early representatives of that viewpoint were Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius. In contrast, the mainstream church firmly rejected it, especially since Praxeas' teaching implied that the Father had been crucified under Pontius Pilate, which the church recognized to be totally different from what it had always taught. Instead, the church maintained an emphasis on the fact that, although there was only one God who was revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, still there were three distinct persons. Later on, the next major problem came with the rise of the Arian controversy, when an Alexandrian church elder began teaching a radical view - probably influenced partially by Neoplatonism - that the essence of God was to be unbegotten, and so since the Son was clearly begotten, they could not be of the same essence; consequently, the Son had to be the highest created being, but definitely lower than the unbegotten God. (It was later, as a result of this controversy, that the church was able to hammer out the precise difference between 'begotten' and 'made'.) But among other reasons, many Christians were outraged at what Arius was teaching because the church for hundreds of years had been worshipping Jesus as God.

On the whole, you could say that this was a long quest for the right way to harmonize everything that the Bible says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible is very clear - or at least virtually all Christians throughout the ages have thought so - that there is only one God, in the most fundamental sense of the word, and that any solution that allowed the statement "there are three true gods" to be true would be unacceptable. And yet when they reviewed the Bible, it seemed clear to them that it was presenting the Father as truly God, presenting the Son as truly God, and presenting the Spirit as truly God. The problem wouldn't likely have faced the Christians who were working in a Second Temple Jewish context, but it did face the church after it moved into a different cultural context wherein they had to use the language of Greek philosophy. Eventually they found a successful solution in terms of one ousia and three hypostases or prosopa, though in the course of doing so they had to radically reshape the way in which those words were understood. What helped was that it was recognized by them that something about the divine ousia was radically different from the human ousia, such that even three hypostases sharing the divine ousia would be one God. What they finally found had basically the same basic content, at root, as the New Testament teaching, but in new language and addressing certain new questions. The same process of contextualization has gone on elsewhere as well since then; for instance, some nineteenth-century theologians in India have done an interesting job using the language of Advaitavedanta (a major school of Indian philosophy) to present the doctrine of the Trinity in that very different context.

[Justice]

I certainly don't want to be disrespectful, in fact I am very curious to understand what others believe.

I'm sorry, I just can't come to terms with the Trinity, as described and discussed on this thread, and the Trinity I have heard Christians describe for decades here in the Bible Belt where I live. One of my good friends at work tries to explain it to me every week. He tells me I'm trying to put God in a box and that I can't.

John 14:28

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

There are so many verses in the Bible that lead away from the Trinity. The most profound is John 17, the great intercessory prayer. In which Jesus describes PERFECTLY, multiple times, exactly how the Father and Son are one.

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

In my estimation, if the Trinity were a true concept, the only thing Christ could be praying for is unity in physical body for all believers... a literal oneness, like the Father and Son are One in the Trinity. His language is too plain to be otherwise.

However, Christ immediatley shows it is not one in physicality because He then asks for:

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

A prayer that would be redundant if He was asking for them to be one with them, just as the Father and Son are One (in Being).

I am not being difficult or argumentative, I am merely explaining what I see in clear terms so my concerns can be addressed clearly, and I can be taught or shown how John 17 can be true while the Trinity is true. They are direct contradictions. John 17 clearly teaches untiy in purpose, mind and will, which is what made Christ perfect... subjecting His will perfectly to the Father's thereby becoming One with Him.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Justice

[Traveler]

This is not intended to upset anyone - but since there are no Jews here to respond I will try to represent a concern they bring up concerning the Trinity. The ancient Hebrew word to describe “one” G-d is the word “ehad” and has two possible meanings. One is singular and the other is plural. The singular meaning applies to one as when a man and a women marry and become “one” flesh. In this usage there are two obvious distinct individuals and persons that make up the marriage.

The other ehad singular meaning is the counting number one and according to the ancients had no distinguishable or discernable parts or sub parts or anything recognized as in any way different from the other. Thus the distinction of G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is blasphemy to them.

The Trinitarians have tried to get around this by moving outside scripture (as explained in the early Christian documents explaining the reason for the creation of the Trinitarian Creed) by saying G-d is indivisible and without body, parts or passions. An explanation that many Jews actually find offensive.

I would also point out there exist a branch of Christians that claim to be as ancient as the Catholics and Orthodox. For lack of a better term they are called Nestorian Christians and are the Christians of Asia that trace their roots back to the Apostles of first century of the Christian era. As I understand from those I have met they do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. As I understand the main dispute comes from the interpreted meaning of the scripture that refers to Mary as the mother of our L-rd.

The Taveler

PS. The ancient Hebrew word that discribes an individual as a unique singular being is the word "yheid" and is never use in ancient scripture in any reference to G-d.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Traveler
added PS

[Justice]

Trinitarians believe that there is one and only one God, the God of Israel, and that any claim that there are other gods aside from that God is false...

But the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons; the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

I just can't get there from here.

One God.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit = 1.

It's just not happening for me. I respect your belief, but the only way it can truly be described is by saying it can't be understood. I think that's where all descriptions of the Trinity eventually end up.

To me, that is much more difficult to believe than God the Father is our Father in Heaven, period. He sent His Son, His Olny Begotten Son, to atone for mankind. One sends another, just like the text says. If they were one in Being, as described in the Trinity, One would not have to send the Other. They would decide to do. One would not be greater than the other (as I showed in scripture), they would co-exist and be equal.

I understand your belief that God is over all and above all, and attempts we make to understand fall short, but I believe God made nature the way it is to show us who He is... Father.

[Justice]

He called himself the I AM.

He certainly was. Jesus Christ's name before He was born mortal was Jehovah... the Great I AM. It was He, before He was born, when speaking to prophets claimed to be the Great Jehovah.

Yes, PC, One in the Same... not part of a triune being, but the very same being in His pre-mortal state.

John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

People have explained away these verses in many different ways. But, the proof that Christ claimed to be the SAME Being that appeared to Abraham and Moses is that the Jews took up stones to take his life.

[prisonchaplain]

I am going to add this, not as an absolute explanation, but as an indication of why we view these same Bible passages and beliefs so differently.

We all agree that the Father and the Son are separate persons. LDS go beyond, and say they are totally distinct beings, with individual corporeal bodies.

We agree that the Father has the ultimate position of authority in the Godhead. Further, that Jesus defers to the will of the Father. LDS seem to place greater emphasis on this "lesser" position of Jesus.

On an official level, we insist we are monotheist, even if some LDS scholars accept the term henotheism.

And yet, thoughtful LDS generally view trinitarian theology and explanation as convoluted, and trinitarians see LDS as polytheists.

Perhaps the huge hurdle--that elephant in the room that no one has mentioned--is our view of church authority and the Great Apostasy. Trinitarians do not believe a grevious apostasy has occured, removing God's spiritual authority from the Church. So, although most of us here are not Catholic, we look to the Trinity doctrine's lengthy history, and see proof that God has blessed it. It's duration and wide-spread acceptance are indications of its truth.

LDS reject this, instead seeing it as a core doctrine of the Great Apostasy.

Am I on to something here?

[Justice]

Abolutely.

However, if you believe there wasn't a falling away, and that the church did not lose it's authority, then why are you not Catholic?

(It is NOT a jab, it is an honest and sincere question)

Also, can you tell me exactly how you interpret John 17?

[Justice]

We all agree that the Father and the Son are separate persons. LDS go beyond, and say they are totally distinct beings, with individual corporeal bodies.

If they are separate persons, how can it be otherwise? They must also be separate Beings. Those two words have the same meaning when talking about "life."

What does Father's spirit "body" look like? Were we created in His image? Do you believe He has no essence or place where His consiousness resides? Does He fill all space? Is He more like a thought and not a Being?

So many questions about the Trinity...

[Maureen]

If they are separate persons, how can it be otherwise? They must also be separate Beings. Those two words have the same meaning when talking about "life."

...

But not when describing the Trinity. The word "Being" is a description of nature. Man has a human nature (finite) while God has a divine nature (infinite). While there are many humans there is only one God (one divine nature). And in that one and only divine nature there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

M.

[Guest]

I just can't get there from here.

One God.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit = 1.

It's just not happening for me. I respect your belief, but the only way it can truly be described is by saying it can't be understood. I think that's where all descriptions of the Trinity eventually end up.

To me, that is much more difficult to believe than God the Father is our Father in Heaven, period. He sent His Son, His Olny Begotten Son, to atone for mankind. One sends another, just like the text says. If they were one in Being, as described in the Trinity, One would not have to send the Other. They would decide to do. One would not be greater than the other (as I showed in scripture), they would co-exist and be equal.

I understand your belief that God is over all and above all, and attempts we make to understand fall short, but I believe God made nature the way it is to show us who He is... Father.

Justice, it's really not that big a leap from the Godhead. The 3 persons thing is the same between LDS and Catholic. EXACTLY the same. The ONE GOD thing is also the same - LDS believe in ONE GOD (God being the purpose, not the person) just like the Catholics. The only difference is - LDS believe they know exactly what that term GOD implies (although you can ask two LDS people and they may have a different idea of what that exactly means). Catholics don't even try to pretend they know what that means.

But, if you're more concerned about finding differences than finding similarities, then yeah, they can seem as wide as the Pacific Ocean...

[prisonchaplain]

Abolutely.

However, if you believe there wasn't a falling away, and that the church did not lose it's authority, then why are you not Catholic?

(It is NOT a jab, it is an honest and sincere question)

Also, can you tell me exactly how you interpret John 17?

It's actually an excellent question--one I am sure the priest I work with daily wonders often. I can only speak for most evangelicals and Baptists. We look at the first church, as described in Acts and in Paul's letters, and we do not see the type of hierarchy found in Catholic and LDS practice. Yes, there were Overseers--pastors. There were deacons, who served. There were teachers, those who prophesied, etc. However, we do not see a centralized Church, with a strong central "government." Rather, we perceive a loosely connected movement, based on Jesus, and upon the teachings of the original Apostles.

Additionally, many denominations today were not founded out of "protest" (aka Protestantism) against the Roman Catholic church. Rather, they formed out of revivals that the churches of the day did not accept.

So, we do not believe that the Catholic church "lost" God's authority. Rather, that God never meant for it to be the centralized power it had become. And, if we are right, then even though it may have gone through a season of small-case-a apostasy, it's imperfections never arose to the level of an all-out failing of the Church.

John 17, which I assume speaks of a falling away, is something that my particular fellowship (evangelical) mostly believe will take place during the Great Tribulation, at the end of time. It will be concurrent with the revelation of the Antichrist.

[prisonchaplain]

If they are separate persons, how can it be otherwise? They must also be separate Beings. Those two words have the same meaning when talking about "life."

You say it has to be. We say it cannot be. If Jesus is God, and God is one, then we cannot understand how Jesus and the Father can be in two completely separate bodies.

What does Father's spirit "body" look like? Were we created in His image? Do you believe He has no essence or place where His consiousness resides? Does He fill all space? Is He more like a thought and not a Being?

So many questions about the Trinity...

If I am not mistaken, most who follow the God of Abraham (Christians, Muslims, Jews) believe the Father to be spirit and not body. Thus, we assume the image of God that is in us is heart and soul, not flesh.

[Traveler]

I am going to add this, not as an absolute explanation, but as an indication of why we view these same Bible passages and beliefs so differently.

We all agree that the Father and the Son are separate persons. LDS go beyond, and say they are totally distinct beings, with individual corporeal bodies.

We agree that the Father has the ultimate position of authority in the Godhead. Further, that Jesus defers to the will of the Father. LDS seem to place greater emphasis on this "lesser" position of Jesus.

On an official level, we insist we are monotheist, even if some LDS scholars accept the term henotheism.

And yet, thoughtful LDS generally view trinitarian theology and explanation as convoluted, and trinitarians see LDS as polytheists.

Perhaps the huge hurdle--that elephant in the room that no one has mentioned--is our view of church authority and the Great Apostasy. Trinitarians do not believe a grevious apostasy has occured, removing God's spiritual authority from the Church. So, although most of us here are not Catholic, we look to the Trinity doctrine's lengthy history, and see proof that God has blessed it. It's duration and wide-spread acceptance are indications of its truth.

LDS reject this, instead seeing it as a core doctrine of the Great Apostasy.

Am I on to something here?

PC - I believe you are correct in understanding a core difference. There are three distinct doctrines that LDS believe are all directly coupled - in that they are connected to the point that understanding of one requires understanding the others.

First: is the understanding the nature of G-d and the members of the G-d head and that man by creation was meant to be g-ds (like unto G-d).

Second: Is the understanding the various kingdoms over which heaven is governed and over which fallen man is governed.

Third: Is the understanding that apostasy is a fall from or losing the power and authority (name) of the Kingdom. Thus we believe the apostasy is when man creates a religion with the intent to prevent man from becoming g-ds (like unto G-d). As harsh as this sound we believe this to be the desire of Satan - to prevent man from becoming g-ds (like unto G-d)

LDS believe that when man fell, Adam and all mankind lost access to the Father and the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus we understand the fall of Adam as an apostasy from the Father and that in this apostasy man became subject to Satan.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the kingdom over which Jesus is the King. This Kingdom is sometimes called the kingdom of G-d. I believe the big difference here is that LDS see the church as directly connected to Christ. Thus the church is the power and authority for men to first act as proxy for G-d - or as proxy G-ds - or if you will G-ds in embryo. Thus exaltation is membership in the kingdom of G-d as heirs of Christ (sometimes known as the “first born”). We see the apostasy as the lost authority that elevates man to joint heir ship with Jesus Christ - not only in the kingdom of G-d but also in the Kingdom of Heaven. Or as Jesus said - to Know the Truth that will make us free. For if you stop to think - we must realize and conclude that in reality only G-d is free.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

As harsh as this sound we believe this to be the desire of Satan - to prevent man from becoming g-ds (like unto G-d)

Harsh or not, you capture the very essence of the divide. What gnaws at folk like myself, who very much wish that the well-behaved LDS could be made to fit within broader Christian orthodoxy, is that beyond our agreements, there is this ginormously different understanding of how we will end up. Your belief in exaltation fits in with the henotheistic (or monotheistic-in-purpose only) LDS Godhead. Not only can God be three separate beings--we can become exalted gods ourselves.

To our millenia old absolute monotheistic sensitivities, this sounds like paganism, New Age mysticism, and like our understanding of Satan's promise in the Garden of Eden (eat the fruit and become as God).

Oh, I can pull us back closer together. We also believe in exaltation. We will become as gods. We will judge angels. We have gained immortality. However, our end goal is to more perfectly worship our Creator. We do not believe we shall ever become what He is.

And we're good with that. We are so pleased to be forgiven, to have eternal life, to know that our knowledge, power and purpose will become exponentially greater than it is.

We cannot bridge this divide. However, understanding it, and the sincere belief on both sides, that we are embracing God's truth and gospel, should at least help us understand one another better.

[slamjet]

Harsh or not, you capture the very essence of the divide. What gnaws at folk like myself, who very much wish that the well-behaved LDS could be made to fit within broader Christian orthodoxy, is that beyond our agreements, there is this ginormously different understanding of how we will end up. Your belief in exaltation fits in with the henotheistic (or monotheistic-in-purpose only) LDS Godhead. Not only can God be three separate beings--we can become exalted gods ourselves.

I have always heard that over the pulpit. But I always take it with a grain of salt when a member purports to spell out what other denominations think.

So if I can ask some questions that are most likely going to sound simplistic and small minded, and maybe a bit confrontational. But please remember that tact is not my strong suit so don't take any of this as an attack, but as real curiosity. Anyhow, here goes:

You state that "We also believe in exaltation. We will become as gods. We will judge angels. We have gained immortality. However, our end goal is to more perfectly worship our Creator. We do not believe we shall ever become what He is."

- Is there not a contradiction in becoming as Gods and judging angels? Isn't judgment reserved for God himself as Christ said somewhere in the New Testament (I'm neither a Bible scholar)? Thus, if becoming a judge are we not becoming Gods, not just one step removed?

- And when you say that "we will judge angels" who are the angels?

- And when you say that the "end goal is to more perfectly worship our Creator" what does this mean? Are we going to be eternally bowing before our Creator in the act of worship?

You also say that "... were good with that. We are so pleased to be forgiven, to have eternal life, to know that our knowledge, power and purpose will become exponentially greater than it is."

- Is this not also contradictory since to worship God denoted a limit where as to have "...knowledge, power and purpose" become greater than it is now not in the realm of Godhood? Or is there a limit?

- And in the view that LDS doctrine states that we can become Gods ourselves, is this viewed as, for lack of a better word, conceited?

[Justice]

But not when describing the Trinity. The word "Being" is a description of nature. Man has a human nature (finite) while God has a divine nature (infinite). While there are many humans there is only one God (one divine nature). And in that one and only divine nature there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

M.

God also has a human nature: Christ was born mortal.

Man also has a divine nature: Men can be humble, pentitent, do good, loving and kind deeds for others...

I'll get to the other responses later.