How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[Justice]

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

It's not my intention to seek differences. I seek understanding. If there is agreement on a particular topic then no understanding is needed. I bring up differences because that it where understanding is needed.

Too many discuss religion and feel agreement is necessary. If agreement is not reached they feel attacked or offended and they begin to ridicule or demean other's beliefs. That is why many religious discussions fail.

What we need to seek in these discussions is understanding, not agreement.

That is my intention.

Plain and simple: I do not understand the Trinity, and I've been trying for a very long time.

[Justice]

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.

Thank you for the explanation.

And, no, I switched topics on you. :)

John 17 deals directly with the topic of the Trinity. I quoted some of the verses in an earlier post.

[Justice]

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.

Unless, as stated in John 17, that the Father and Son, and all who come to accept Christ, are one in will, and not body.

It is so much easier to use a legal definition of the word one to interpret those scriptures than it is to turn to a belief that can't be explained, even by those who believe it.

I'm not saying it's wrong because it's complicated, or that my belief is right because it's simple. I'm saying I can't even comprehend how people get from one place to the other. Jesus says "The Father and I are One." I don't know why one would think He meant anything other than will, because that's the ONLY definition that makes sense.

Genesis suggests over and over that there were "Gods" in the beginning. It is very reasonable to think that, even though there were many, there is only One to us, and that is the One responsible for our salvation. That is neither blasphemous nor presumptuous. It fits the words and would not offend God, because He said it.

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.

Joseph Smith taught that spirit is matter. Saying God is spirit is not "defintely" saying God does not have a body. A mortal body is very different than an immortal body, and an immortal body of flesh and bones is very different than a body of spirit.

It's not that our teachngs are not Biblical, it's that they are not the same interpretation of the Bible that most Christians have. Majority never has determined truth.

The deeper I think and ponder about the Trinity, in an attempt to understand, the farther away I get from understanding. I have found that the doctrine inhibits in-depth study simply because it claims, in and of itself, that it cannot be understood.

I believe we can see God in nature. He reveals Himself to us there. I see nothing in nature that supports the Trinity doctrine. If I did, then I would have an example or reference which would greatly increase my ability to understand it.

[Justice]

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).

I'm certain you are more familiar with the Bible and it's passages than I am, but I always post this verse when I see a comment like yours:

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

The implications of this verse are far-reaching on many levels. First, it is clear than man and God was different, even though man was immortal at that point. When Adam partook of the fruit, he gained something. According to God (not just Satan), what he gained made him "as one of us." Man became more like God as a result. That is very odd to ponder, especially when you realize that it was transgression, or sin, that caused the gap to narrow.

I have heard many different people of many different Christian denominations try to explain this verse. With a belief in God as a Trinity, it just can't be done. I'm not just referring to His use of "us" before Christ was "separated" and made mortal, but that the man is "as one of us," which is exactly what Christ was praying for in John 17. Though man was "as God" he needed to learn to shun the evil he just learned and choose God's will, thus becoming even more like God (as so beautifully illustrated in The Prodigal Son).

So, it's OK to quote that verse where Satan claimed it and state that it is a difference between LDS and other Christians, but I will always post God's reply and claim that that part of what Satan said could not have been a/the lie, since God stated the same thing.

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.

Agreed. I also seek understanding.

That becomes very difficult for me when I hear Christians say, when referring to their belief in God, "It can't be understood."

Where do I go for understanding when the very ones who believe it don't understand it?

[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.

Sorry for the delay in my response. Thanks. I agree that paradox has a better ring to it, seeing that I too, as a latter-day saint, believe that both sides of the paradox are true. In other words, I truly do not believe there is a contradiction at play.

[Note in retrospect: the rest of this post is rambling]

That's okay I thought it was interesting reading nonetheless. :)

I personally think that there is a greater difference between the Trinitarian and the LDS view of the Godhead than the subject of their oneness. In fact, I have seen these conversations ultimately come to an understanding here on these forums many times, with LDS conceding that the "of one nature" can be compatible with our view of the Godhead, and (perhaps) vice versa.

What we claim, concerning our relationship with God, is perhaps a greater hurdle. Namely, I'm talking about our relationship as offspring of God. Latter-day saints believe that God the Father is literally the Father of the spirits of mankind, and that Jesus Christ is his Firstborn. Further we believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh - meaning He is the only one of us who's physical body was sired by God the Father, and was born miraculously to the virgin Mary. To be clear, we do not know the details of Christ's conception, but we believe the biblical record, that Mary was a virgin before and after his birth.

It is our belief that the pre-mortal Christ is the Lord of the Universe, and that under the direction of the Father, He created all things in heaven and earth.

We claim that Christ is the foreordained Redeemer of mankind, and that not only did He show us a perfect example of how to return to the Father, He made the return possible by Atoning for our sins and bringing about the resurrection of the dead.

We believe that Christ will judge us on that great day, according to our words, thoughts, and actions, and that those who have accepted his teachings and been obedient to his commandments, will be made heirs and join-heirs with Christ, and rule and reign in the kingdoms of the Father.

I consider Jesus Christ my Lord and my God, and in so doing I do not believe that I offend the Father, whom I also worship in His holy name.

So, I think our literal kinship to God the Father, as the Father of our spirits, and our brotherhood to Jesus Christ, who is the Author of our salvation might be a greater hurdle than just the nature of their oneness.

What do you think about all that?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Jason_J]

Yes, I think that the "of one nature" view is compatible with LDS theology, however would it also be correct to say that in LDS thought, we are all of the same nature as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

[Maureen]

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

True, Christ (Son) became flesh, became mortal; God became man. But God as always existed as God. Mainstream Christianity believes that God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No member of the Trinity has ever been created or formed in any kind of way. Mainstream Christianity does not see Christ as "the firstborn among all the sons of God". Catholics and Protestants do not see Christ as a "big brother" because Christ has always been God. There was a point in time and space when God "became" man but God never "became" God, God has always been God.

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

In mainstream Christianity this is not so. Only God is divine. We do have the ability to do good things, be loving and caring; but you don't need a divine nature to do that.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

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?

My first thought is that one step removed from God is infinity. We do not believe there can be another who is God. Also, does not God delegate others to judge on his behalf? In some ways judges may be "god-like," but I would not confuse that with actual deification.

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

I do not believe I understand the question. Angels are angels. Not humans, not gods--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?

We'll be occupied with his work, but yes, we will eternally be worshiping the only God.

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?

We will, in comparison to how we are now, become god-like. But, never God. Again, we are strict monotheists. We believe there has always been, is, and will forever be only one God. We will eternally, gratefully worship him.

- 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?

At minimum. It appears to be polytheism, with self becoming the ultimate deity.

[prisonchaplain]

Unless, as stated in John 17, that the Father and Son, and all who come to accept Christ, are one in will, and not body.

It is so much easier to use a legal definition of the word one to interpret those scriptures than it is to turn to a belief that can't be explained, even by those who believe it.

I'm not saying it's wrong because it's complicated, or that my belief is right because it's simple. I'm saying I can't even comprehend how people get from one place to the other. Jesus says "The Father and I are One." I don't know why one would think He meant anything other than will, because that's the ONLY definition that makes sense.

John 17 probably does speak to purpose and will. However, Jesus was not addressing his nature, nor that of his Father. He was stating that he represents the Father. So, the chapter is largely irrelevent to the larger question of the ultimate nature of the Father and Son. We do not disagree with LDS that these two shared the same purpose.

None of that answers the question of how there can be three persons and only one God. Trinitarians say that the answer lies in the three persons sharing the same essence. LDS say that their sharing of the same purpose is sufficient--that three beings can be one Godhead.

One is not simpler than the other. It is difficult for trinitarians to explain how three distinct persons can be one God. It is difficult for LDS to justify the label monotheist, when they believe in three separate beings--with two physical bodies can be one God.

Genesis suggests over and over that there were "Gods" in the beginning. It is very reasonable to think that, even though there were many, there is only One to us, and that is the One responsible for our salvation. That is neither blasphemous nor presumptuous. It fits the words and would not offend God, because He said it.

We disagree. The false gods of the Old Testament were either man-made statues, or demons. And, if I am not mistaken, official LDS doctrine identifies the Church as monotheistic.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm certain you are more familiar with the Bible and it's passages than I am, but I always post this verse when I see a comment like yours:

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

The concern here seems two-fold. Who was God speaking to "us"? And, how did the man become like God? To the first, there are several reasonable speculations as to who the us is. It could indeed have been the Father, Son and Holy Spirit conferencing. At times, God addressed the angels of heaven, which, to humans, all appear god-like.

How did man become like God. He gained the knowledge of good and evil, which God already had. So, he became more like God. The problem was that he did so by disobedience--rebellion.

There is nothing in this passage that leads me to presume that man was becoming God. Rather, he gained knowledge that God already had.

That becomes very difficult for me when I hear Christians say, when referring to their belief in God, "It can't be understood."

Where do I go for understanding when the very ones who believe it don't understand it?

It is easy to state that God is three persons, and yet one. Why must we understand how that works? Scripture labels all three persons as God, and yet says God is one. So we combine those two and call it a TRI-UNITY. On that level, it's simple.

Try to wrap your mind around it, and it's impossible. But, no more so than saying that the one God of Israel was actually three beings united in purpose, who created mankind to become Gods as well--and that all of this can be called monotheism.

[slamjet]

I do not believe I understand the question. Angels are angels. Not humans, not gods--angels.

Cool, I understand more where you're coming from. But this one is still quite vague. Especially when you say that "we will judge angels." I guess my questions are:

Who are they?

Are they a part or parcel of the same creation as we are?

What is their assigned task?

And if they're to be judged, are they also living through a life of good and evil?

Also, if these angels are subject to judgment, what is the outcome of the termination of their angelic-ship, if there is one?

Or am I just plain being guilty of what I'm always guilty of: over-analyzing?

[mnn727]

This is what I don't get about people of other faiths. They know Jesus Christ is the Son of God but then they say God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one God.

You mean like this?

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

from

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

[Justice]

Try to wrap your mind around it, and it's impossible. But, no more so than saying that the one God of Israel was actually three beings united in purpose, who created mankind to become Gods as well--and that all of this can be called monotheism.

Yes, it's a matter of interpretation.

That God the Father is Supreme, and is our Father in Heaven, and Jesus Christ is His Son, is very simple to understand. Christ said the Father was greater than Himself.

What's not fair is to say our interpretation is any less scriptural than the doctrine of the Trinity is unfair (not saying you said it, but I've heard plenty that have). It's a different interpretation of the same words... plain and simple. Plus, we have additional witnesses to back up our interpretation, that still fits the Bible.

Always a pleasure discussing meaningful topics with you, PC.

[Justice]

In mainstream Christianity this is not so. Only God is divine. We do have the ability to do good things, be loving and caring; but you don't need a divine nature to do that.

2 Peter 1:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And food for thought:

John 1:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

What do you think it means to become a son (or daughter) of God?

How different is a son from his father?

[Justice]

John 17 probably does speak to purpose and will. However, Jesus was not addressing his nature, nor that of his Father. He was stating that he represents the Father. So, the chapter is largely irrelevent to the larger question of the ultimate nature of the Father and Son. We do not disagree with LDS that these two shared the same purpose.

This is the explanation that I hear. However, for me it falls short. Jesus uses clear language that leads one to see that all can be one, just as He and the Father are.

Just as.

Perfect in one.

One in us.

He is definining HOW the Father and Son are one so that all who believe can share that SAME oneness. I see no reason to believe that in this one instance He changes or excludes parts of His oneness with the Father. His language is too clear for me to interpret it that way.

Of course, you can exclude this part of the definition and it is linguistically valid, as the belief in the Trinity proves.

There isn't another scripture in the Bible as clear and concise as this one is, that seems to go out of the way to define how the Father and Son are one, many ways, many times. If this one can be interpreted both ways, then the Bible alone isn't enough to solve this dilemma.

[Maureen]

2 Peter 1:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I found some information at bible.org:

1:3 I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, 19 after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire.

19 sn Although the author has borrowed the expression partakers of the divine nature from paganism, his meaning is clearly Christian. He does not mean apotheosis (man becoming a god) in the pagan sense, but rather that believers have an organic connection with God. Because of such a connection, God can truly be called our Father. Conceptually, this bears the same meaning as Paul’s “in Christ” formula. The author’s statement, though startling at first, is hardly different from Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians that they “may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (3:19).

NETBible: 2 Peter 1

And food for thought:

John 1:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

What do you think it means to become a son (or daughter) of God?

How different is a son from his father?

Since we have been separated from God due to sin, Christ, through the atonement has made it possible for us to become children of God (through adoption) to those who believe.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Cool, I understand more where you're coming from. But this one is still quite vague. Especially when you say that "we will judge angels." I guess my questions are:

Who are they?

Are they a part or parcel of the same creation as we are?

What is their assigned task?

And if they're to be judged, are they also living through a life of good and evil?

Also, if these angels are subject to judgment, what is the outcome of the termination of their angelic-ship, if there is one?

Or am I just plain being guilty of what I'm always guilty of: over-analyzing?

Angels appear as distinct from humans in the Bible. They are capable of evil, in that I third of them rebelled with Satan, who was also an angel. I base the fact that we will judge angels upon Paul's statement that the Corinthians should avoid lawsuits amongst themselves, and should rather take care of the matters within the church, since we will some day judge angels. It's a cryptic statement, so I do dnot have the answers to most of your questions.

[prisonchaplain]

What's not fair is to say our interpretation is any less scriptural than the doctrine of the Trinity is unfair (not saying you said it, but I've heard plenty that have). It's a different interpretation of the same words... plain and simple. Plus, we have additional witnesses to back up our interpretation, that still fits the Bible.

Always a pleasure discussing meaningful topics with you, PC.

So often doctrine intertwines. If the Restoration and the Great Apostasy doctrines are true, then your additional witnesses trump my reference to centuries of church teaching having stood the test of time. If the Apostasy is yet to come, and the extra witnesses are anything less than the Restoration of an apostate faith, then my tradition and history is the greater witness.

[prisonchaplain]

This is the explanation that I hear. However, for me it falls short. Jesus uses clear language that leads one to see that all can be one, just as He and the Father are.

Just as. Perfect in one. One in us.

He is definining HOW the Father and Son are one so that all who believe can share that SAME oneness. I see no reason to believe that in this one instance He changes or excludes parts of His oneness with the Father. His language is too clear for me to interpret it that way.

Of course, you can exclude this part of the definition and it is linguistically valid, as the belief in the Trinity proves.

There isn't another scripture in the Bible as clear and concise as this one is, that seems to go out of the way to define how the Father and Son are one, many ways, many times. If this one can be interpreted both ways, then the Bible alone isn't enough to solve this dilemma.

The context of this passage, of course, is that Jesus is praying to his Father. In fact, this chapter is sometimes called, "The Real Lord's prayer." Matthew 6 is a template he gives us for praying. In this chapter, he's actually doing so.

The prayer is public, since it was recorded. He's praying that we would be united as he and the Father are united. United with him and each other. To go beyond a simple reading, and interpret Jesus as praying to the Father about his metaphysical nature vis a vis the Father seems to me to be begging the question. Then again, if I were LDS, I might indeed see this passage as confirmation.

[Yekcidmij]

To understand Trinitarianism it's important to understand philosophical concepts of "essence" and "personhood" and how they have been used over the centuries (such as Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc..). The basic idea is easy: we believe in a tri-personal God. God is one Being/Essence/Substance/Nature and 3 persons. Conceiving how this "looks" or explaining the Trinity in further detail is difficult. I think the difficulty comes from the fact that we don't interact with too many objects that we think of in this manner and analogies we try to use to help us never seem to work.

Some analogies that I have seen that I think all fail are as follows:

The Human Analogy: I am body, soul and spirit just as God is Father Son and Spirit.

The Egg: The egg is one egg composed of shell, white, and yolk.

Water: Water can be in 3 states: solid, liquid and gas.

Time: Time exists as past, present and future.

And there are probably more too. I think these all fail for various reasons.

If you are interested in current thinking on how to conceive and explain detail about the doctrine of the Trinity, it's worth noting that there are several main schools of thoght, all of which are trinitarian (they all affirm the historical creeds): Latin Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism, and Plain-ol-Mystery.

Read all about them at Stanford here and enjoy: Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If you are LDS, I suspect the Social Trinitarianism in particular will be appealing to you, and as you might imagine, those who are social trinitarians always end up defending charges of tri-theism in the literature.

Edited January 17, 2011 by JimmieD1

[slamjet]

Angels appear as distinct from humans in the Bible. They are capable of evil, in that I third of them rebelled with Satan, who was also an angel. I base the fact that we will judge angels upon Paul's statement that the Corinthians should avoid lawsuits amongst themselves, and should rather take care of the matters within the church, since we will some day judge angels. It's a cryptic statement, so I do dnot have the answers to most of your questions.

At a minimum, you gave me points of reference for the answer to the question. I can take it from here. Thank you for your patience in answering my questions. I feel this helps me have a better point of reference of where you and others are coming from when I read posts and interact with others.

Believe it or not, I use these answer's as part of me building my skills for empathy. Something I personally have had to build (it no wonder I've had a disastrous life thus far). The more information I have about what others ideas and thoughts are, the more I have to be able to refer to during discussions. That way I can be less obstinate by practicing and exercising a feeling of understanding and tact rather than saying "That's your opinion and you're wrong."

I'm sure being a Prison Chaplain you've run across a lot like me

[Jbdf]

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.

I think one thing that can be a big problem for some is clearing up a lot of common misconceptions about the Trinity - misconceptions that can be held by professing Trinitarians as well as by non-Trinitarians, unfortunately.

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.

Needless to say, I disagree. I dealt with this one in particular in an earlier post, where I pointed out two different approaches, both of which are both possible in light of the text itself and both of which are also entirely compatible with Trinitarian thought - and both of which have been around for over 1400 years.

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. [....] 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: [...] 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.

I think I can see one misconception arising here. Trinitarians believe that the oneness of the Trinity is a oneness in nature/essence/deity, and so the Father and the Son were every bit as one before the Son took on human flesh in the incarnation as they were afterwards. But Trinitarians also believe that, apart from that one act of incarnation, none of the persons of the Trinity are naturally embodied, or naturally physical/material/corporeal in any way. So from that it should be clear that when we talk about the Father and the Son being 'one', we do not mean that the Father and the Son are one physical object. Rather, we mean that the Father and the Son are one God, which entails being one in purpose and love as well as being one in essence.

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.

But the real question is, "One what?" Yes, Trinitarians do believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God.

And for what it's worth, I try not to punt to mystery as a way of avoiding the hard work of thinking about it. I do think that it's something that we cannot fully resolve, in the sense of being able to eventually see it as something containable and beneath us. I think it's more along the manner of the way the nature of light is for us currently: we can see that light exhibits wave-like properties, and we can see that light exhibits particle-like properties, and we can see that nothing in our experience has wholly prepared us to put those images together, and for that reason if we're asked, "Well how can that be?", we may not have much of an answer other that to say that to an extent it's beyond us. We can't domesticate light - and, just as with the creation, so much more with the Creator. But, we can apprehend it well enough to probe at the mystery.

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.

For my part, I'm trying to get away from using the phrase "one in being". The reason is that, these days, the English word "being" is extremely ambiguous. What is "being"? That's one of the perennial philosophical questions. The phrase "one in being, three in person" was intended to be the English equivalent of "una substantia, tres personae", but I think that for the sake of ease, we ought to switch to the locution "one in essence, three in person" as an accurate reflection of the Trinitarian thought of the Greek and Latin Fathers. And when it comes to the Father and Son being one God, or being one in essence... well, why shouldn't one send the other? Why shouldn't one be in some sense greater than the other (if, indeed, that statement would be true of them apart from the incarnation)?

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)

I'd like to take a chance to answer this, since I - like prisonchaplain - do not believe that there was a wholesale falling away of the church. The first reason that I'm not Roman Catholic is that if I weren't Protestant, I'd be Eastern Orthodox instead. In terms of representing faithfully the character of the church in the patristic period, I think the Orthodox communions do a better job than the Roman Catholic communion does at present. It's all too easy in the West to get this mental image of the Roman Catholic Church as 'original' and forget about the Eastern Orthodox.

At any rate, keep in mind that the 'branch' view of ecclesiology is one that comes natural to Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholics but maybe not so much to Evangelicals such as myself. For my part, when I ask myself, "What is the church?", the answer is that it is the body of Christ. Any Christian is, by virtue of that fact, a part of the church in some sense, even if perhaps - due to schism, heresy, or sin - they are not full participants in its communion and in holding to its one faith and its spiritual unity. So the question then is, where do I belong? I belong in a local congregation where the word of God is taught faithfully and which strives for communion and fellowship with all Christians everywhere and with all Christians who seek to hold to the faith we've received from the apostles. If a member of some other church holding to, for example, the Nicene faith were to come seeking communion and fellowship at my congregation, we certainly wouldn't disbar them from that table-fellowship with us. We seek no schism; we seek unity of fellowship. From this perspective, it is when other Christian groups - for example, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox - would refuse to enter into that fellowship with us that it is they rather than ourselves who are acting as schismatics. (And as far as 'authority', one must remember that Evangelicals seldom think in those terms. But when it comes to priesthood, I as an Evangelical adhere largely to Martin Luther's exposition of the 'priesthood of all believers', which I see as being faithful to the New Testament's teaching about priesthood in the New Covenant. But that seems like an issue for an entirely different time, so I won't go into more detail here.)

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

Is there a particular element of John 17 that interests you here? (Please also see my remarks on John 17:22 in an earlier post.)

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...

The assumption here that "being" (if by that one means "essence"/"nature") and "person" are synonymous is simply one Trinitarians would reject. The sense of the word "being" in which an orthodox Trinitarian affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one being" is not a sense of the word "being" in which it is synonymous with "person".

Mainstream Christians also do not accept that the Father has a "spirit body". We instead believe that to be "spirit" in the sense in which God is spirit is precisely to be immaterial and incorporeal. Hence, there is no answer from this perspective to that first question, as the question is predicated on an inapplicable assumption.

Regarding the issue of being created in his image, Evangelicals affirm that we are created in his image but have a radically different notion of what that phrase means. For me, at least, to be created in his image means to be created as a representative of his power and authority in the earthly dominion, just as ancient Near Eastern kings set up representations of themselves throughout their kingdom and just as their gods were represented by images on earth as well. (Noteworthy is that those images did not always need to have a close resemblance to the king or god; what was needed was that it be a fitting emblem of the authority and presence of that king or god.) Hence, to be created in the image of God does not - for us - carry any implications about the similarity of physical appearance. This helps us make sense for the post-Flood command against murder, which outlaws it on the grounds that we are made in God's image. This command is a bit obscure if we take that as meaning, "Don't kill each other because you look a lot like God does", but seems to make better sense if we take it as meaning, "Don't kill each other because every human is designed to be a living emblem of God's authority and presence on the earth, and every human needs to be treated with the dignity appropriate to that calling; hence, shedding one another's blood in an unlawful manner is an affront to God's own authority and presence, akin to the assassination of an ambassador of heaven." However, in order to be a fitting representative of God on earth, we did need to be endowed with certain characteristics, among which are reason, self-awareness, and free agency.

Your next question is a bit obscure and seems related to your fourth question. I'll answer as best as I can by giving a more general exposition, while admitting upfront that I'm not totally sure what it is that you mean. God, by default, is not a body. He therefore does not occupy space. Heaven and earth cannot contain him; he is, in his spaceless immensity, grander and vaster than the whole of the cosmos. Nor should he be thought of as an aether that fills the whole of space; that would be closer than picturing him as limited to one position in space, but still would be incorrect. God does have intimate access to every point in space and thus can be said to be present at every point, but this should likely not be taken to mean that he is spatially located at every point in space. God is the container, not the contained. (This raises a number of questions about what it means to say that any person is located somewhere, but we won't get into those philosophical quandaries here.) Thus, it can't be said that there is some particular place where his consciousness resides to the exclusion of other places, for the simple reason that God, as such, is the creator of space and so does not wholly reside in space. However, it may be said that he is present at certain places in certain additional ways. For instance, the Father is present in heaven, which may be taken in a variety of compatible ways. It may be, for instance, that those in heaven (whatever it means to be 'in heaven', precisely - that, too, is a tricky issue) have intimate access to the Father, such that he is more present there with us than one body is present to another. It may also be that the Father perpetually manifests himself in a theophany in heaven, thus expressing himself spatially there. Those are quite compatible, I think. Those are just a few ideas I'm tossing out. Ultimately, though, what I would say is that God cannot be entirely contained in space, and that God is not wholly absent anywhere in terms of his most basic mode of presence, whatever precisely that means.

As for your fifth question, I can't really give an answer since I don't know what you mean when you use the word "being", or for that matter what you mean when you use the word "thought", and thus I have no grounds on which to guess what you think are the major distinguishing differences between the two, or why an incorporeal deity might be more comparable to the former than to the latter.

[Jbdf]

Unless, as stated in John 17, that the Father and Son, and all who come to accept Christ, are one in will, and not body.

It is so much easier to use a legal definition of the word one to interpret those scriptures than it is to turn to a belief that can't be explained, even by those who believe it.

I'm not saying it's wrong because it's complicated, or that my belief is right because it's simple. I'm saying I can't even comprehend how people get from one place to the other. Jesus says "The Father and I are One." I don't know why one would think He meant anything other than will, because that's the ONLY definition that makes sense.

Here I would once again disagree, but also suggest that perhaps you've only considered two options: one in will, and one body. I would submit to you that there are other ways of understanding the oneness in John 17 besides those two. I'll briefly recapitulate what I was getting at in a previous post. Jewish literature of the time is full of affirmations that something ought to appropriately be one for the reason that God is one. If there is only one universal God, they said, then the faith upheld should be one, his temple should be one, his chosen people should be one. Schism and disharmony, in other words, were being condemned as practical denials of the oneness of God. That, I think, is what lies behind Jesus' discourse on oneness. The Father and the Son are one God, not two. Therefore, they share in the intimate interpersonal relationship appropriate to constituting the oneness of God. Now, if the Father and the Son are one God, then - so the familiar argument does - their people ought to be one people. And to be one people means not to foster schism and disharmony, but rather to strive after a uniting communion with one another, cultivating interpersonal relationships that reflect the impassioned love found within God's own tripersonal self. The oneness of God implies that the Father and the Son are united in will, and the oneness of God's people would imply that they, too, seek unity in will; but neither is wholly reducible to that.

Genesis suggests over and over that there were "Gods" in the beginning. It is very reasonable to think that, even though there were many, there is only One to us, and that is the One responsible for our salvation. That is neither blasphemous nor presumptuous. It fits the words and would not offend God, because He said it.

I would disagree here as well. Contrary to Joseph Smith's famous exposition of Genesis 1, there is no polytheism in it. It says that in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. The word elohim is technically plural, but it is likely an intensive plural, as was common in Hebrew. This is especially clear since it is paired with a singular form of the verb in this passage. Intensive plurals and other such constructions are used frequently in the Old Testament. For instance, behemoth in Job is the intensive plural of behema, "beast".

Joseph Smith taught that spirit is matter. Saying God is spirit is not "defintely" saying God does not have a body. A mortal body is very different than an immortal body, and an immortal body of flesh and bones is very different than a body of spirit.

With all due respect to Joseph Smith, this is simply one area in which I and many other non-LDS Christians simply cannot agree with his position. Only if one assumes that "spirit" is a type of body (or, that statements of the simple form "X is [a] spirit" carry no implications as to whether or not that spirit is embodied) is John 4:24 seemingly compatible with the LDS teaching on divine embodiment. At any rate, in our judgment, it won't work in this case, since the logic of the passage pushes us toward the mainstream Christian view. Here's how I would read it. In John 4:24, Jesus is explaining why one of the major disputes between Samaritans and Judaeans is becoming irrelevant under the New Covenant. That dispute was, which is the proper 'one temple' for the God of Israel, the one in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount or the one in Samaria on Mt. Gerizim. Under the New Covenant, however, there is no unique geographical place that takes a spiritual priority. It is the people of God as a community who constitute a living temple, not bound to one place; it is the believer who him- or herself is a temple to God. Geography becomes irrelevant to piety. Why does Jesus remark about God being spirit? Because God, as spirit, is fully omnipresent and, as such, is present everywhere among his people. Spirit is immaterial and incorporeal, and hence is not limited to one or the other geographical locale. God as spirit is able to be present among his people wherever they are; the mark of a true worshipper of God is not where they are on a map but where their worship stands in honoring God. If they worship in spirit and in truth - in other words, as Christians faithfully honoring God and living as people driven by the Holy Spirit - then it does not matter whether they worship in Jerusalem, in Samaria, or anywhere else on the face of the earth, because he is present among them no matter where they are.

It's not that our teachngs are not Biblical, it's that they are not the same interpretation of the Bible that most Christians have. Majority never has determined truth.

I don't think anyone has ever maintained that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct simply because most people believe it. However, it must be granted that, if one view has been seen and overwhelmingly recognized by the people of God throughout the ages, that can't be ignored as a consideration in its favor. That doesn't mean that the views of dissenters are irrelevant, but it does mean that they ought to have a decent case.

For my own part, I do think that certain LDS teachings are unbiblical in certain ways. Mainly, that I don't think that some of them can be defended adequately from the Bible if the Bible is being read in a way informed by literary and sociohistorical context, as is appropriate. Not all interpretations are equal. Now, I would of course expect Latter-day Saints to try to show, drawing responsibly on the literary and sociohistorical context, how those distinctive teachings are able to be derived from the Bible. And I of course have no problem with that effort; my position is simply that it is unsuccessful (though I'm quite willing to be shown wrong there).

The deeper I think and ponder about the Trinity, in an attempt to understand, the farther away I get from understanding. I have found that the doctrine inhibits in-depth study simply because it claims, in and of itself, that it cannot be understood.

I for my part have never found the fundamentals of Trinitarian theology to be all that imposing or difficult to understand. I don't know that many Trinitarians have ever contended that nothing about it can be understood. What we have said is this: if we cannot fully get our minds around certain facets of the created order, then if God's ways are truly infinitely higher than ours, we ought not pretend that we can fully get our minds around him, as though we could domesticate God, trap him in a cage, dissect him with our instruments, and eventually close our notebooks and say, "Well, that was fun. We've finally got that whole God thing figured out now." We can't. We're faced with a God who is truly infinite, whom we know only partially and frequently through limited analogies drawn from created nature. It stands to reason that this situation calls for appropriate intellectual humility. In this case, it is often appropriate for most to accept the teachings while admitting that our handle on the mechanics of it is limited. That doesn't mean that no effort is being put into trying to wrestle with the meanings of the terms, or analogies that might help, or the implications of this or that. Indeed, mainstream Trinitarian thought has a robust history of 'speculative' theology that grapples with those very things. Numerous debates about various details of Trinitarian theology still persist, sometimes by more practically minded theologians, sometimes by analytic philosophers of religion.

I believe we can see God in nature. He reveals Himself to us there. I see nothing in nature that supports the Trinity doctrine. If I did, then I would have an example or reference which would greatly increase my ability to understand it.

Ultimately, there is no perfect created analogy that captures every facet of who and what God is. If there were, he wouldn't be God. Nevertheless, there are limited analogies that each help with certain aspects of it, but which also each fail to capture others and can be misleading if taken too absolutely. It's for that reason that I dislike trying to find analogies. One decent one is the image of a light bulb lit from everlasting to everlasting. The bulb itself (or the coil in it, or what-have-you) continually shines light and radiates heat, both eternally; and yet if either were absent, it would not be a lightbulb (in the fullest sense of the word). Just so, the Father begets/generates the Son and spirates the Spirit eternally and is inseparable from both. And as the light and heat are, with the bulb, one lit lightbulb rather than three, so the Son and the Spirit are, with the Father, one God rather than three. Another pointer comes from C. S. Lewis. To a two-dimensional figure, the notion of a cube would sound utterly absurd. One figure... with six squares? What nonsense! But just as, despite the protests of a two-dimensional critic, a cube transcends the two-dimensional limits on how many squares may be in a figure, so does God transcend our created limits on how many persons may be in God. Those are two that I've found less limited than many of the other popular ones, though still hardly an avenue to complete understanding.

God may indeed be known from nature, but not everything about God may be known through a created analogy. I find no natural thing that is omnipotent, or that is self-existent, or that is all-wise, or that is from everlasting to everlasting. Still, there may be limited traces of God's tripersonality in nature - but as at best very pale reflections.

Sorry for the delay in my response. Thanks. I agree that paradox has a better ring to it, seeing that I too, as a latter-day saint, believe that both sides of the paradox are true. In other words, I truly do not believe there is a contradiction at play.

Agreed. :)

I personally think that there is a greater difference between the Trinitarian and the LDS view of the Godhead than the subject of their oneness. In fact, I have seen these conversations ultimately come to an understanding here on these forums many times, with LDS conceding that the "of one nature" can be compatible with our view of the Godhead, and (perhaps) vice versa.

Agreed here as well. Technically, the affirmation of "one essence" is quite compatible, in some sense, with the LDS view of the Godhead. It's the major other differences that make a big difference. The biggest one, I think, is that in non-LDS Christian thought, there is a very strong sense that there is a great ontological difference between ourselves and God, and hence that we aren't all the same fundamental kind of thing.

What we claim, concerning our relationship with God, is perhaps a greater hurdle. Namely, I'm talking about our relationship as offspring of God. Latter-day saints believe that God the Father is literally the Father of the spirits of mankind, and that Jesus Christ is his Firstborn. Further we believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh - meaning He is the only one of us who's physical body was sired by God the Father, and was born miraculously to the virgin Mary. To be clear, we do not know the details of Christ's conception, but we believe the biblical record, that Mary was a virgin before and after his birth.

I think one roadblock to dialogue here is that, well, many other Christians just have no idea what is being meant when the word "literal" is used in this way. I would say that I, too, believe that God is the Father of our spirits. He is the creator of our spirits. But I don't think, "Ah, well, that's a metaphorical use of the word 'father' as opposed to a literal one." I would say that it's a different use of the word 'father' than when we speak of our earthly fathers being 'fathers', but I don't use a 'literal'/'metaphorical' spectrum for it. Likewise, apart from the Word becoming flesh, Trinitarians historically have believed that the Son is begotten by the Father. We believe that the Son timelessly derives his existence from the Father as a matter of metaphysical necessity, and all this within the essence of God. I don't take that as a less 'literal' use of the language of begetting than any carnal use. For this reason, I don't think the LDS emphasis on their beliefs being 'literal' is all that productive without further exposition of the exact content of what's being affirmed.

Similarly, we have questions on what exactly it means for Jesus' body to be "sired" by the Father. What I would say the mainstream Christian belief has been is this: God, by his power, created a human body in Mary's womb, a complete human nature to which the Word could in his divine nature be joined in the hypostatic union. The creation of this body was a joint-act of all three members of the Godhead. God's unique fatherhood of Christ stems from before the incarnation, not from the act of incarnation itself.

It is our belief that the pre-mortal Christ is the Lord of the Universe, and that under the direction of the Father, He created all things in heaven and earth.

We claim that Christ is the foreordained Redeemer of mankind, and that not only did He show us a perfect example of how to return to the Father, He made the return possible by Atoning for our sins and bringing about the resurrection of the dead.

We believe that Christ will judge us on that great day, according to our words, thoughts, and actions, and that those who have accepted his teachings and been obedient to his commandments, will be made heirs and join-heirs with Christ, and rule and reign in the kingdoms of the Father.

I consider Jesus Christ my Lord and my God, and in so doing I do not believe that I offend the Father, whom I also worship in His holy name.

Amen! I see no (few?) substantial problems in your words there. I believe that Christ is Lord and God - though, I would qualify, not a Lord and God other than the Father - and that he created heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is. I believe that Christ was chosen before creation to be the redeemer of mankind, and that he shows us the way to be in communion with the Father as we were meant to be, and that he enabled this by making atonement for our sins and rising again so that we might share in his triumph. The day will come when Christ will judge us - and I would add that all those who have faith now, provided they hold true to the faith, have an assurance of a verdict in their favor on that day. And then all Christians will be made joint-heirs with Christ, and will be glorified and will reign with him over the whole of creation.

Cool, I understand more where you're coming from. But this one is still quite vague. Especially when you say that "we will judge angels." I guess my questions are:

Who are they?

Are they a part or parcel of the same creation as we are?

What is their assigned task?

And if they're to be judged, are they also living through a life of good and evil?

Also, if these angels are subject to judgment, what is the outcome of the termination of their angelic-ship, if there is one?

Or am I just plain being guilty of what I'm always guilty of: over-analyzing?

For my part, if I may interject, I would say that angels are spirits created by God before we were created (not sure what you mean about them being "a part or parcel of the same creation as we are", though, but I would add that they are not of the same kind/species as humans or as God). They have a number of tasks, such as glorifying God and serving him and ministering to the human faithful as well. Some of those angels rebelled, and so will receive a negative verdict in the final judgment. It may also be that individual virtuous angels will have their angelic careers submitted to us for review in the future, but that's wholly speculation. For those angels who rebelled before and so will be given a negative verdict at that judgment to come, their fate will be to be cast into outer darkness, forever cut off from God, and so to gradually and perpetually diminish in glory and in faculties.

Those are my thoughts on some of the issues that have been raised in this thread, at least. It's been busy since I last posted! (Sorry to have to split it into two posts, but I suppose I was responding to quite a few posts after all!)

[LDSChristian]

John 20 is a big help.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Christ states He will ascend to His God. So much for the whole "they are one God" thing since Jesus Christ has a God, God the Father.

Also, 1 Corinthians 11.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Edited January 17, 2011 by LDSChristian

[Guest]

John 20 is a big help.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Christ states He will ascend to His God. So much for the whole "they are one God" thing since Jesus Christ has a God, God the Father.

Also, 1 Corinthians 11.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Uhm... yes, they are ONE GOD. Even the LDS believe that. Unless you're one of them who don't believe Jesus is God.