How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[LDSChristian]

I'm TELLING you, you are confused. You may not realize it, but you are.

We have mentioned it over and over that the word GOD is not the same as the word PERSON. You just can't seem to understand that.

Okay... ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?

P.S. Please let LDSChristian alone answer the question so we can make a clear discussion. Thank you.

And I'm calling you a LIAR. I am not the one confused here. Since you try to say I am just to satisfy yourself when I'm not confused that makes your statement: "I'm TELLING you, you are confused" a lie. Also, you do not tell me how I feel, especially if, and you are, wrong. That clear? That's something I will NOT put up with. "God doesn't mean one person." No duh. I never said one God means one person. Since you say that's what I'm saying that makes two lies you've told.

"DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?" There's a difference between what you and some other members of the church believes and what the church actually teaches. The church teaches what the scriptures teach.

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

"Since the LDS believe in an apostasy from true doctrine, they see the creedal Trinitarianism—which is an admitted novelty in the centuries after Christ—as evidence of it. "

Going by that, the church teaches the modern trinity people believe in is a sign of apostasy.

[LDSChristian]

And you go ahead and believe the Book of Mormon that wasn't around until the 1830's...

C'mon. You know better than to say things like that.

And the golden plates were around in the BC era so that makes your argument null and void.

[Yahuchannon]

wow

[Maureen]

...Going by that, the church teaches the modern trinity people believe in is a sign of apostasy.

I noticed on your profile LDSChristian that you are 19 years old and I'm assuming have probably not gone on your mission yet. Do you suppose that when you go and testify to Trinitarians in this way that you will win many souls to your way of thinkiing?

M.

[Guest]

And I'm calling you a LIAR. I am not the one confused here. Since you try to say I am just to satisfy yourself when I'm not confused that makes your statement: "I'm TELLING you, you are confused" a lie. Also, you do not tell me how I feel, especially if, and you are, wrong. That clear? That's something I will NOT put up with. "God doesn't mean one person." No duh. I never said one God means one person. Since you say that's what I'm saying that makes two lies you've told.

"DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?" There's a difference between what you and some other members of the church believes and what the church actually teaches. The church teaches what the scriptures teach.

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

"Since the LDS believe in an apostasy from true doctrine, they see the creedal Trinitarianism—which is an admitted novelty in the centuries after Christ—as evidence of it. "

Going by that, the church teaches the modern trinity people believe in is a sign of apostasy.

Again... I want to ask you the question:

"DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?"

Really simple. Yes or No.

You can qualify the Yes or No answer... but please answer with Yes or No.

By the way, in case I wasn't clear... I'm LDS. I know everything about that FAIR article you keep on posting. I'm not arguing if Trinitarianism is true or false. I'm arguing that YOU do NOT UNDERSTAND Trinitarianism, therefore, it makes your arguments against it Null and Void. I'm starting to question if you understand the Godhead...

Edited January 21, 2011 by anatess

[Guest]

I noticed on your profile LDSChristian that you are 19 years old and I'm assuming have probably not gone on your mission yet. Do you suppose that when you go and testify to Trinitarians in this way that you will win many souls to your way of thinkiing?

M.

Oh man! I'm old enough to be his mother!

[LDSChristian]

Again... I want to ask you the question:

"DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?"

Really simple. Yes or No.

You can qualify the Yes or No answer... but please answer with Yes or No.

By the way, in case I wasn't clear... I'm LDS. I know everything about that FAIR article you keep on posting. I'm not arguing if Trinitarianism is true or false. I'm arguing that YOU do NOT UNDERSTAND Trinitarianism, therefore, it makes your arguments against it Null and Void. I'm starting to question if you understand the Godhead...

Yes, I do understand the trinitarianism belief and I do understand the Godhead. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are of one purpose. The scriptures are not as complicated as you make them out to be. The Bible teaches of the Godhead and the fact that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are of one purpose. It doesn't teach the trinity concept CREATED in the AD period. Go read the scriptures and also study up on history of the trinity concept. The concept originated in Paganism, not Christianity. I even have a friend that's Pagan that verified it.

Edited January 21, 2011 by LDSChristian

[LDSChristian]

Oh man! I'm old enough to be his mother!

Yet I actually read the scriptures, study them, and take notes on them. What's also important is the fact that I understand what I read. And I mean I take notes on each chapter of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the sections of Doctrine and Covenants. When it comes to the scriptures I'm knowledgeable. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

[Guest]

Yet I actually read the scriptures, study them, and take notes on them. What's also important is the fact that I understand what I read. And I mean I take notes on each chapter of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the sections of Doctrine and Covenants. When it comes to the scriptures I'm knowledgeable. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Okay, you say you understand what you read. Now, take a look at this - from the front of the Book of Mormon:

The Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Do you see the bolded part?

Okay, tell me WHY DOES THE BOOK OF MORMON have that line when you just told us about Ephisians 1:3...

[Maureen]

Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child. He is the one who gave us our agency. It was his plan that provided for a fall and an atonement. And it is to him that we must be reconciled if we are to gain salvation. He is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need--which there is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

...And again, if it were proper--and I repeat, it is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for some special attention, we might well conclude that member should be the Holy Ghost. We might well adopt as a slogan: Seek the Spirit. The reason of course is that the sanctifying power of the Spirit would assure us of reconciliation with the Father. And any person who enjoys the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit will be in complete harmony with the divine will in all things.

I'm curious if anyone else might find this a little confusing. Mr McConkie is adamant that it is not proper to single out the Son over the Father but is he saying that it might be acceptable to single out the Holy Spirit over the Father? He states forcefully that "it is not" proper but then goes on to paint of picture of acceptance. Any thoughts?

M.

[prisonchaplain]

First: is based upon faith in a just and merciful G-d that does make known “all things from the beginning to the end”. This means that the light of truth is there - we just need the faith to accept a restoration. That is that G-d has restored the truth through the living prophets.

Second: is based upon the understanding that man fell - and that fall placed man in the fallen situation where there was indeed one and only G-d to save him. That one and only G-d by which man has hope of salvation is Jesus Christ. And that Jesus Christ is the L-rd and G-d over the fallen that because of the fall have no other G-d until the effects of the fall are taken back and man is restored.

Without the understanding of the two principles - there can be no resolution to the questions scrounging G-d and his true actual nature - Be it the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost.

The Traveler

In a sense all Christians fall into these two lines of thought. For non-LDS, though, Jesus restored true Judaism. We are grafted into the line of Abraham, by faith and by blood (that of the Messiah). Messianic Judaism is perhaps the epitome of this restorationist perspective.

LDS are able to take the certainty to completion, though. Once the living prophets declare the matter settled, the confusion dissipates. We Protestants in particular are required to tolerate a greater amount of unknown.

[prisonchaplain]

MEMO to LDSChristian...please understand that Anatess, who was Catholic, and is LDS, has a unique perspective. She knows the trinitarian doctrine, and the LDS Godhead doctrine. She is offering you some added insight, not challenging your faith. When she suggests you are confused, she means you are not fully grasping the trinitarian perspective--NOT that you are feeling befuddled.

This is actually an over-all high-quality thread. As I posted near the beginning, I have seen more than 10 of them in my five years here. This one is going well. We just all need to keep our heads above water, and not take comments personally.

[Dr T]

In a sense all Christians fall into these two lines of thought. For non-LDS, though, Jesus restored true Judaism. We are grafted into the line of Abraham, by faith and by blood (that of the Messiah). Messianic Judaism is perhaps the epitome of this restorationist perspective.

LDS are able to take the certainty to completion, though. Once the living prophets declare the matter settled, the confusion dissipates. We Protestants in particular are required to tolerate a greater amount of unknown.

I, for one, sure have a LOT to learn and will continue to have questions on into heaven.

[Jason_J]

Yea, they do.

No, they did not address the post that you were responding to, which was on why the Trinity does not imply or say that Jesus is the Son of Himself. Those links do not address that.

And yes, Christ is our God while God the Father is His God and Jesus Christ says in the scriptures.

Great, then you agree with Trinitarians on something.

At what point did I say they are one person? Nowhere.

When you stated-"If all 3 were ONE single God then you would have to say Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself." in this post, you were implying that the Trinity is teaching or implying that the Father and the Son are the same Person, otherwise the statement that "Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself" doesn't follow. I have already demonstrated why such a statement is false and not representative of the Trinity. It is representative of Modalism, and issue that you have not addressed yet.

They are 3 beings. You go ahead and believe the traditional trinity that wasn't around until the AD's and I'll believe in what the scriptures' version is.

Such a statement does not add to the discussion.

[Jason_J]

What's annoying is when people try to say I feel a certain way such as you just said I'm confused when I'm not.

No one is saying anything about your feelings. What we are talking about is your understanding of the Trinity doctrine. Multiple people have shown why you are confusing the Trinity doctrine with Modalism.

I know exactly what I read. I read what that post said it is implying 3 gods & then a contradiction comes at the end by saying they are one God.

"Jesus Christ=Son of God

God=Father

God=Son

God=Holy Ghost

God=Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

That's saying the 3 is one single God.

Yes, they are a "single God", but "single God" does not mean "single Person", which is what you are implying by your arguments. This is what people (including LDS) have been trying to show you.

God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, our Lord our God. If God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God how are they, along with the Holy Ghost, one God?

Don't, you, as an LDS, believe that they are "one God"? Sure, you don't agree with the Trinitarian definition, however you still believe that they are "one God" in some way. The Book of Mormon says so.

God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God [the Father], and He is also God (John 1:1). However they are not the same Person. They are distinct Persons, as the Trinity doctrine clearly states.

You also emphasized the point I made about the problem the traditional, not biblical, version of the trinity. Jesus Christ is the Son of God yet somehow you want to say the 3 are one God.

The Book of Mormon says as much. Perhaps you should be clear that you are not disputing the phrase "one God", but what that phrase means.

You're saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost. When you take God the Father out by saying Son of God means God the Father, which it does, you're still breaking away from the "3 are 1 God" concept you're speaking of. This concept was never around until the AD period. The prophets and apostles of old never taught this idea and Jesus Christ certainly didn't.

No, "Son of God" does not mean 'God the Father". "Son of God" refers to Jesus Christ. Since the Trinity doctrine clearly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, who are thus not each other, your argument does not work.

Also, as I have already stated, no one is claiming or implying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost. He is only the Son of God the Father. As I have showed, and you posted above, the word "God" can refer to either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or all three of them. In the case of "Son of God", "God" is referring to the Father only. Their being "one God" does not mean that they are one Person, since the Trinity doctrine states that they are three distinct Persons, so your argument that someone is claiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of Himself does not work, unless we are talking about Modalism, which is not Trinitarianism.

[Jason_J]

Again... I want to ask you the question:

"DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?"

Really simple. Yes or No.

You can qualify the Yes or No answer... but please answer with Yes or No.

By the way, in case I wasn't clear... I'm LDS. I know everything about that FAIR article you keep on posting. I'm not arguing if Trinitarianism is true or false. I'm arguing that YOU do NOT UNDERSTAND Trinitarianism, therefore, it makes your arguments against it Null and Void. I'm starting to question if you understand the Godhead...

Thank you. Also, I'm not arguing whether Trinitarianism is true or false either. We and others are merely arguing for the accurate portrayal of what the Trinity doctrine means. Otherwise, trust me, Trinitarians will be amused at another person confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism. It's best to argue against what the belief actually is, and not a straw man construct.

[prisonchaplain]

One thing I appreciate about LDS.net, and the LDS posters here is "walking the talk." Often I see complaints of Antis, and of some evangelicals bad habit of telling LDS what their doctrine is. Here we have seen a misrepresentation of trinitarian doctrine--or perhaps a forced conclusion that really does not follow. However, it is LDS posters who are refuting this, more than we trinitarians. So, kudos for living up to the fair play standard!

[mordorbund]

Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child. He is the one who gave us our agency. It was his plan that provided for a fall and an atonement. And it is to him that we must be reconciled if we are to gain salvation. He is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some need--which there is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose.

...And again, if it were proper--and I repeat, it is not!--to single out one member of the Godhead for some special attention, we might well conclude that member should be the Holy Ghost. We might well adopt as a slogan: Seek the Spirit. The reason of course is that the sanctifying power of the Spirit would assure us of reconciliation with the Father. And any person who enjoys the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit will be in complete harmony with the divine will in all things.

I'm curious if anyone else might find this a little confusing. Mr McConkie is adamant that it is not proper to single out the Son over the Father but is he saying that it might be acceptable to single out the Holy Spirit over the Father? He states forcefully that "it is not" proper but then goes on to paint of picture of acceptance. Any thoughts?

M.

As I recall, this particular talk was intended as a challenge to the popular teaching we should build a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. McConkie's response is that there is not a need to single out the Savior, as all members of the Godhead are worth knowing. The Father, because we ultimately want to please him, and the Holy Ghost because as Talmage points out the Holy Ghost will lead us to every blessing we could need or want.

[LDSChristian]

No one is saying anything about your feelings. What we are talking about is your understanding of the Trinity doctrine. Multiple people have shown why you are confusing the Trinity doctrine with Modalism.

And I'm showing you people why I'm not confusing the two.

Yes, they are a "single God", but "single God" does not mean "single Person", which is what you are implying by your arguments. This is what people (including LDS) have been trying to show you.

I went over this already. I am not implying they are one person. This is what I'VE been trying to show you and others. I have NOT implied they are one person. Jesus Christ is our Lord our God and God the Father is Jesus Christ's God just as Christ himself states in the scriptures.

God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God [the Father], and He is also God (John 1:1). However they are not the same Person. They are distinct Persons, as the Trinity doctrine clearly states.

:mad:

How many times do I have to say this to get it through you people?! I NEVER said they are one person. Do NOT tell me I'm saying something I'm NOT saying.

No, "Son of God" does not mean 'God the Father". "Son of God" refers to Jesus Christ. Since the Trinity doctrine clearly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, who are thus not each other, your argument does not work.

Uh, yes. "Son of God" does mean son of God the Father. And no crap, they are distinct persons. I've never said otherwise although people don't seem to get that. You're saying Christ is the Son of God (God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself) and the Holy Ghost: your version). And to make this clear, I am NOT saying they are one person. You're saying:

Jesus Christ, God the Father, Holy Ghost = trinity = God. That's saying the three is one God (again, not saying one person) while Christ is our Lord our God and God the Father is His God.

Also, as I have already stated, no one is claiming or implying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost. He is only the Son of God the Father. As I have showed, and you posted above, the word "God" can refer to either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or all three of them. In the case of "Son of God", "God" is referring to the Father only. Their being "one God" does not mean that they are one Person, since the Trinity doctrine states that they are three distinct Persons, so your argument that someone is claiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of Himself does not work, unless we are talking about Modalism, which is not Trinitarianism.

And you just said being the Son of God doesn't mean God the Father. ""God" is referring to the Father only" which still breaks up the trinity concept. And I'll say this again since you and others don't get it...as usual. I am not saying and have not said they are one person.

And yes, the argument I made does work. I'll say this before I continue: I am not saying they are one person. Guess I need to put that on every post so you'll get that hopefully.

Trinity: God = God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost.

By the way, I just looked on the LDS website and the church doesn't exactly support the idea you speak of. God is God the Father, the Eternal Father. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior who cried out "my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Do not confuse your idea on the trinity with the beliefs of the church and scriptures. The three is not one single God which isn't the same as saying person by the way. I'm not saying that either. God is God the Father, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Lord and Savior, and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God. That's the godhead, not trinity created in AD.

"Latter-day Saints reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today."

Which is the same Trinity you're speaking of. The one the church rejects.

Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity - Ensign Mar. 1988

Edited January 22, 2011 by LDSChristian

[Jason_J]

And I'm showing you people why I'm not confusing the two.

Actually you aren't. You assert this, but you do not demonstrate it.

I went over this already. I am not implying they are one person. This is what I'VE been trying to show you and others. I have NOT implied they are one person. Jesus Christ is our Lord our God and God the Father is Jesus Christ's God just as Christ himself states in the scriptures.

Perhaps you are confused about what we're referring to. We aren't talking about your personal LDS beliefs about the Godhead. We are saying that your portrayal of Trinitarianism is wrong because you are describing the Trinity doctrine as Modalism, and not the Trinity. You have yet to address the issue of Modalism and how it is different from Trinitarianism. If you can do that, then you'll see why everyone else in this thread, people that have extensively researched and discussed this issue, sees that you are misrepresenting the Trinity.

It is okay to be wrong.

:mad:

How many times do I have to say this to get it through you people?! I NEVER said they are one person. Do NOT tell me I'm saying something I'm NOT saying.

Again, we're talking about how you present the Trinity. I have already demonstrated multiple times why your argument about the Trinity would only make sense if the Trinity taught that they are one Person. You imply that you think that the Trinity doctrine states they are one Person, as I have already demonstrated. You have not addressed those arguments.

Uh, yes. "Son of God" does mean son of God the Father. And no crap, they are distinct persons. I've never said otherwise although people don't seem to get that.

Yes, Son of God means Son of God the Father. The post of yours that I was responding to was ambiguous and seemed to say to me that the phrase "Son of God" was referring to God the Father. I see that is not what you meant, and were saying that the word "God" in the phrase "Son of God" refers to God the Father. You agree with Trinitarians.

We clearly get that you believe that they are distinct Persons. The problem here is that you are not understanding that Trinitarians believe that they are distinct Persons too. The Catholic Church has a document called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which documents all of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. This paragraph shows that, in accordance with the Trinity doctrine, they believe that the Three are distinct Persons.

The problem again is that your arguments show that you do not understand this fact of the Trinity, and why your arguments against the Trinity do not work, and instead argue against Modalism.

You're saying Christ is the Son of God (God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself) and the Holy Ghost: your version).

No, that is not what the Trinity says, and we have gone over this before, but you ignore it. To Trinitarians, "God" in that phrase refers only to the Father. The Trinity says that they are distinct Persons. If they are distinct Persons, then you can "separate" them in the sense that "God" can refer to any of them individually, or all of them collectively. Therefore, your sentence above is false and does not represent the Trinity.

And to make this clear, I am NOT saying they are one person.

Then why are you saying that Trinitarians believe that Christ is the Son of God the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost? That only makes sense if Trinitarians believe that the 3 are one Person. That only makes sense if the Trinity is really Modalism. Again, since they are distinct Persons, as Trinitarians believe, Trinitarians can confidently say that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of Himself.

You're saying:

Jesus Christ, God the Father, Holy Ghost = trinity = God. That's saying the three is one God (again, not saying one person) while Christ is our Lord our God and God the Father is His God.

Yes, they are "one God". As already stated, the Book of Mormon says as much.

And you just said being the Son of God doesn't mean God the Father.

As I mentioned, your post was ambiguous and seemed to say to me that "Son of God" referred to God the Father. I agree that the word "God" refers to the Father. What I thought you were saying was that the whole phrase "Son of God" referred to the Father. We both agree that that is wrong and that "God" means the Father in this case.

""God" is referring to the Father only" which still breaks up the trinity concept.

No it doesn't, because the Trinity accepts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons. Since this fact is part of the doctrine, there is no breaking up of the Trinity concept, since it is defined as a belief in 3 distinct Persons. This is what multiple people have shown over and over, which is why we find your presentation of arguments against the Trinity erroneous.

And I'll say this again since you and others don't get it...as usual. I am not saying and have not said they are one person.

And we are saying that your arguments imply that that is what you believe the Trinity is saying. We have shown why we infer this from your arguments, and also why they miss the fundamental belief of Trinitarians that the Three are distinct from each other, and why "God" can refer to all 3 or each one individually.

And yes, the argument I made does work. I'll say this before I continue: I am not saying they are one person. Guess I need to put that on every post so you'll get that hopefully.

Trinity: God = God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost.

Yes, God=the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, "God" can also refer to each individually. John 1:1 shows why this is true.

By the way, I just looked on the LDS website and the church doesn't exactly support the idea you speak of. God is God the Father, the Eternal Father. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior who cried out "my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Do not confuse your idea on the trinity with the beliefs of the church and scriptures. The three is not one single God which isn't the same as saying person by the way.

Firstly, the Book of Mormon clearly states that the 3 are "one God". Do you deny this?

Secondly, I agree that "one God" does not mean that they are one Person, however it is by your arguments that you portray the Trinity as believing that. We have shown this.

Just to make myself clear definitively:

The Trinity doctrine is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons who are one in essence/being/nature, one God. Saying that they are "one God" or "one in essence/being" does not mean that they are physically attached to each other, or that they are one Person. Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus prayed to Himself. Such a question would best be asked of Unitarians or Modalists, who are not Trinitarians.

Trinitarians believe that the word "God" can refer to the Three Persons collectively, as "the Trinity", or, it can refer to each Person individually. We see in John 1:1 that the Word (Jesus) is "God", for example. So, when a Trinitarians says that they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in this context, "God" is referring to the Father only. This does not "break up" the Trinity because the Trinity, by definition includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other. Hence, for someone to claim that the Trinity is saying that the Son of God to a Trinitarian means that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost, is to not understand what the Trinity is defined as. Jesus can be Son of God the Father without being Son of Himself in the Trinity doctrine since the Father is distinct from the Son.

The Book of Mormon includes the phrase "one God" in reference to the 3 in a few places (Mormon 7:7, Mosiah 15:3-4, Alma 11:44 etc), so the dispute is not with the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one single God. The dispute is in what that means.

[LDSChristian]

Perhaps you are confused about what we're referring to. We aren't talking about your personal LDS beliefs about the Godhead. We are saying that your portrayal of Trinitarianism is wrong because you are describing the Trinity doctrine as Modalism, and not the Trinity. You have yet to address the issue of Modalism and how it is different from Trinitarianism. If you can do that, then you'll see why everyone else in this thread, people that have extensively researched and discussed this issue, sees that you are misrepresenting the Trinity.

I'm talking about what the church teaches which happens to be the beliefs I follow since it is the Lord's church. The church rejects the trinity concept since it is the Lord's church so I do as well. And I guess everyone else in this thread is blind. I take that back, there are some here who also don't believe in the trinity concept created by man so they're not blind. I know the difference between the two. You're saying I believe they're one being. No, I don't. They are 3 separate individuals, 3 separate beings, 3 separate persons. Modalism teaches they are one being and Trinitarianism teaches they are the triune God. Neither is taught in scriptures or the church.

Again, we're talking about how you present the Trinity. I have already demonstrated multiple times why your argument about the Trinity would only make sense if the Trinity taught that they are one Person. You imply that you think that the Trinity doctrine states they are one Person, as I have already demonstrated. You have not addressed those arguments.

I addressed the "argument" already. I will say this again and again and again until you get this. I HAVE ===>NOT<=== SAID THE TRINITY TEACHES THEY ARE ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!!!

We clearly get that you believe that they are distinct Persons. The problem here is that you are not understanding that Trinitarians believe that they are distinct Persons too. The Catholic Church has a document called the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which documents all of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. This paragraph shows that, in accordance with the Trinity doctrine, they believe that the Three are distinct Persons.

The problem again is that your arguments show that you do not understand this fact of the Trinity, and why your arguments against the Trinity do not work, and instead argue against Modalism.

No you don't get that. Otherwise you wouldn't keep saying you think I'm saying they're one person. I am arguing the trinity because it was not taught by the apostles or prophets nor the modern-day prophet & apostles. The church rejects the idea.

[prisonchaplain]

If LDSChristian is affirming that the Trinity teaches that the one God is three persons, then perhaps we should accept that. What he is saying is accurate...so we now have agreement. That's good, me thinks.ss

To address his latest point...I would agree that ultimately our embrace or rejection of the Trinity hinges largely on whether we believe the CoJCoLDS is the only Church with Christ's authority. In tandem, is whether we believe there was a Great Apostasy, with the Trinity doctrine being one of its byproducts.ss

These topics might deserve new strings, or they might work as an evolution of this thread. Other posters can decide.

[Guest]

Hi LDSChristian. We agree with you. Otherwise, we won't be LDS.

So, that's cool now.

I have some advice for you, though. Take it from some girl who is old enough to be your mother (I'm taking comfort in the fact that PrisonChaplain is older than me... oh, wait, PC, you're older than me, right???)... when you talk to other people about the Trinity, just say the first article of Faith, and maybe talk about the Godhead.

Don't argue with the Trinitarians by going into Ephesians or Hebrews or the "Son of Himself' argument at all. Because, those things are just going to get your message muddy (they are not accurate portrayals of the Trinity doctrine). Don't try to tell the Trinitarians what they believe. Just stick with what YOU believe and why you believe it. Avoid the comparisons. Then your testimony will ring true and could possibly touch someone's heart and be the trigger for the Holy Spirit to work His miracle.

Edited January 23, 2011 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

I have some advice for you, though. Take it from some girl who is old enough to be your mother (I'm taking comfort in the fact that PrisonChaplain is older than me... oh, wait, PC, you're older than me, right???)...

I don't know what you're talking about.

[Jason_J]

You're saying I believe they're one being.

No, I have not said that at all (if I have, cite the post please). I know full well what you believe.

No, I don't. They are 3 separate individuals, 3 separate beings, 3 separate persons. Modalism teaches they are one being and Trinitarianism teaches they are the triune God. Neither is taught in scriptures or the church.

See, this is why others keep saying that you are confused on what we're talking about. The statement of yours that I put in bold is wrong. Modalism does not teach that they are "one being". It teaches that they are one Person, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mere manifestations or "masks" of that one Person. A modalist would believe that Jesus is the Son of Himself, since the Father and the Son are just masks or "roles" that God takes on depending on the situation. This is why we have repeatedly told you that your arguments are not against Trinitarianism, but Modalism. Address that please.

I addressed the "argument" already. I will say this again and again and again until you get this. I HAVE ===>NOT<=== SAID THE TRINITY TEACHES THEY ARE ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!!!

And I will say this again and again and again until you get this: We know that you didn't say that the Trinity teaches that they are one Person. What we do know is that your arguments imply that that is how you are arguing against it, as if they were one Person.

This is very simple: to say that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to say that the Father and the Son are the same Person. You have already stated, in multiple posts, that the Trinity is saying that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost. That only makes sense if one thinks that they are the same Person. So, for you to claim that the Trinity results in the belief that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to imply that you think the Trinity is saying they are one Person. The fact that you can't address this argument shows that all the other people in the thread are correct, and you are not allowing yourself to accept that you are wrong, and those of us that have researched this issue extensively (and some have studied it formally in courses) is interesting.

No you don't get that. Otherwise you wouldn't keep saying you think I'm saying they're one person. I am arguing the trinity because it was not taught by the apostles or prophets nor the modern-day prophet & apostles. The church rejects the idea.

Wonderful. That is not what we are discussing however.

As already stated, you aren't getting that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons. I have already quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official compendium of the beliefs of the largest Trinitarian church in the world, that shows this belief. You have said that a Trinitarian saying that Jesus is the Son of only the Father would "break up" the Trinity, however the fact that the belief in distinct Persons is essential to the Trinity doctrine shows why that is false. Again, to say that the Trinity implies or results in the belief that Jesus is the Son of Himself is to show that you really don't understand what the Trinity doctrine actually is.