How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[LDSChristian]

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

Yes, Jesus Christ is OUR Lord OUR God and God the Father is God of all, including Jesus Christ. In case you missed it Jesus Christ stated He would ascend to His God. I'm a member of the church as well but I also study the scriptures and they're not that hard to understand. By the way, you might want to reread the 1st Article of Faith so you'll have a better understanding of how the church teaches the nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ. "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He can't be His own Son can He? Also, the 1st chapters of Galatians through Colossians state God and Jesus Christ separately just as other parts of the Bible.

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.

Again, Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God and God the Father is God of all, Christ included.

Edited January 17, 2011 by LDSChristian

[prisonchaplain]

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.

You seem to suggest that Jesus was something less than God. Yet, your church teaches that He is the Creator, Jehovah, and that He is one in purpose with the Father.

Perhaps the passage in Philippians 2, in which Jesus is described as giving up his equality with God in order to become a little lower than the angels, helps. During his incarnation, Jesus was indeed much lower in power and nature than his Father, who remained spirit and all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present. He deferred to his Father, both because he is a dutiful son, and because, in flesh he was a representative of his Father.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes, Jesus Christ is OUR Lord OUR God and God the Father is God of all, including Jesus Christ. In case you missed it Jesus Christ stated He would ascend to His God. I'm a member of the church as well but I also study the scriptures and they're not that hard to understand. By the way, you might want to reread the 1st Article of Faith so you'll have a better understanding of how the church teaches the nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ. "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He can't be His own Son can He? Also, the 1st chapters of Galatians through Colossians state God and Jesus Christ separately just as other parts of the Bible.

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.

Again, Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God and God the Father is God of all, Christ included.

Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father? Do you mean that Jesus, like us, must worship his God, the Father? We all agree that Jesus, as Son, is submitted to his Father. You seem to say much more.

[Vanhin]

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.

There is more I want to address concerning your last sentence, but I will save it for my next point since it is related. I do want to thank you at this point for the respect you demonstrate in your language for us and our doctrine. I especially thank you for implying we are Christians by refererring to other Christians as "non-LDS Christians". A small thing I'm sure, but it means a lot to me.

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.

What I mean is the following. The most intelligent type of being in existence is God, and God the Father is a glorified and immortal Man. Our scriptures, for example, call him "Man of Holiness" (Moses 7:35), and his Only Begotten Son is the "Son of Man" (Moses 6:57). So to put a finer point on it, we hold that we are the same type of being that He is, it's just that we are still developing, and are not nearly as progressed as he is - God being all powerful, and all knowing, among other perfect qualities.

We believe that mankind existed in God's presence, as spirits, before taking mortal tabernacles. We are his offspring, and He knew us personally. He endowed us with personal agency (free will), and we are beings capable of acting for ourselves. We had not, of course, attained His glory, and neither could we without His help. Not only is the Father perfect in attributes and joy, but He also possesses an immortal glorified body of flesh and bone. The Father desires nothing more than to exalt his children to the same station and happiness that He enjoys. I cannot imagine a perfect God, who supposedly loves us perfectly, who would not wish to make us as He is. And surely He has the power to do it.

Our Father provided a plan that would enable us to obtain bodies for ourselves and to learn by our own experience the difference between good and evil - and hopefully choose good. This mortal life, is a part of our Father's plan of happiness for us. Mortality is not without challenges, however. Because of our agency, we often act contrary to the will of the Father, and become unclean, and thus are not allowed back into His presence. Further, the bodies we receive are mortal and die, and so are not able to achieve bodies for ourselves permanently. Sin and death, prevent us from returning to God and attaining our full potential.

Our all knowing and all wise Father, of course, knew this would be the case, and so he prepared a Savior for us. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of our Father's children in the pre-mortal world, and was completely submissive to the Father's will and perfectly obedient from the very beginning. Our scriptures teach that the pre-mortal Jesus was "like unto God" (Abr. 3:24). The Father foreordained his Firstborn to Atone for the sins of mankind, and to bring about the resurrection of the dead. He made Christ the ruler of the Universe, and made him our Advocate with the Father. All things were created by Him, and thus our scriptures speak of Christ as the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.

Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; (Alma 11:38-39)

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.

We mean precisely that the father of Christ's physical body is Heavenly Father, who is the God of Heaven, and the Father of all the spirits of mankind, and his mortal mother was the virgin Mary. Thus He is the Only Begotten of all of Heavenly Father's children in the flesh. We believe that this was a miraculous conception, and that Mary was a virgin, yet we believe God was His father - literally.

This allowed the Redeemer of mankind the power to give his life and to take it up again. Only a God could drink the bitter cup and suffer the punishments and the pains of all. He went below all things, and paid the price for our transgressions, which price is required by justice - thus providing mercy to all who would believe on His name and keep His commandments. He overcame the bonds of death for all who would ever be born, allowing them to appear with their resurrected bodies to be judged, the righteous unto eternal life and the wicked unto damnation.

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.

No problems at all with what you wrote. The difference is probably in the details discussed above. I appreciate the conversation thus far. I'm interested in any further thoughts you have concerning what I wrote, or your own views of the matter.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 17, 2011 by Vanhin

[Justice]

He does not mean apotheosis (man becoming a god) in the pagan sense, but rather that believers have an organic connection with God.

It's clear the Bible can lead to disagreement and confusion. The words can be interpreted different ways.

I have never considered myself pagan, yet I believe the Bible teaches that we can become the sons of God.

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.

The meaning here is that we were once with, so we have been separated. That goes against your belief.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, is the son who left more a son before he left, when he was separated, or when he returned? What did the father say about it?

[Traveler]

PC and Jdbf:

When we say that Jesus is one with the Father and there is an oneness of G-d you have my agreement. But here is the question in my mind. When an individual is spiritually born of G-d and becomes one with G-d - if you do not feel that this also is the same oneness of G-d (meaning the spiritually individual becomes one G-d in the same manner) then you as Trinitarians and I as a non-Trinitarian are at a place of impasse where my understand of G-d and scripture is violated by what I think you are saying.

The Traveler

[Justice]

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.

One = United.

That's the simplest explanation.

The prayer didn't have to be public. There are many events told in the scriptures where there was no one around to witness the events.

[LDSChristian]

You seem to suggest that Jesus was something less than God. Yet, your church teaches that He is the Creator, Jehovah, and that He is one in purpose with the Father.

Perhaps the passage in Philippians 2, in which Jesus is described as giving up his equality with God in order to become a little lower than the angels, helps. During his incarnation, Jesus was indeed much lower in power and nature than his Father, who remained spirit and all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present. He deferred to his Father, both because he is a dutiful son, and because, in flesh he was a representative of his Father.

I'm not demeaning Christ at all. Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God and the Creator of all things but He is not God the Father.

[Justice]

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.

We agree that John 17 is talking about will. What I'm pointing out is the language Jesus uses is clear, that He prays for all followers to be one as the Father and Son are, a direct comparison. Since those who believe in Christ are not one yet, according to His prayer, He MUST be using the relationship between the Father and Son as the standard for what one is... and that is one in will.

The word elohim is technically plural, but it is likely an intensive plural, as was common in Hebrew.

I have read many Hebrew scholars who disagree with the side of "likely" you landed on. Many affirm the writers were indeed speaking of multiple and different Beings... in fact, more than 2 or 3.

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.

Again, back to logic... something that does not have a "body" or something that does not "exist in a location" cannot exist. Does God reign in the Kingdom of Heaven? Where is the Kingdom of Heaven? Is it a real place? Or, does it not exist in a location as well? If God's Kingdom exists in a location, then He exists in a location to sit upon it's throne.

I'm convinced that our different views on what spirit is is where the foundation of the difference lays. To believe that God does not exist in a location, or that His "being" or "intelligence" does not exist in a place, whether inside or outside of time, it is saying He does not exist.

Spirit is matter. Spirit is element of some kind. There is no agreement past that point, but at least I now understand the heart of the difference.

In order for the Trinity to exist then God cannot exist as a Being. He must exist more as a thought or feeling. I see now that the basis for my confusion is that He is called a Being in the Trinity, but that He doesn't exist as a Being.

Thank you for your explanations.

[Justice]

The Father desires nothing more than to exalt his children to the same station and happiness that He enjoys. I cannot imagine a perfect God, who supposedly loves us perfectly, who would not wish to make us as He is. And surely He has the power to do it.

Thank you for this piece of logic. It's very delicious!

Where is there a Father (a good father) that does not strive to help his children become all they can?

Christ said that all who believe in Him will be given the power to become...

Tie that thought in with the story of the Prodigal Son and you have a good foundation for what I believe.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not demeaning Christ at all. Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God and the Creator of all things but He is not God the Father.

Agreed. Trinitarianism is not modalism.

[LDSChristian]

Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father? Do you mean that Jesus, like us, must worship his God, the Father? We all agree that Jesus, as Son, is submitted to his Father. You seem to say much more.

The scriptures speak for themselves:

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Ephesians 4:

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

No I'm not saying Jesus Christ is less than God the Father. I'm simply stating what the scriptures say about God the Father being Christ's God.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 17:3 is Jesus Christ speaking. You notice Christ didn't refer to Himself as the only true God. He is talking about God the Father.

@ again

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.

Jesus Christ references to God the Father as "my God" but God the Father never speaks of Jesus Christ as "my God".

[Justice]

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I have always loved this verse.

one God, the Father

one Lord Jesus Christ

One and one is two.

It is the insertion of the second "one" before Lord Jesus Christ that makes this another verse in opposition to the Trinity.

If you remove the second "one" from the verse it would read in support of the Trinity.

[Dr T]

1 plus 1 but as commonly pointed out, 1 times 1 is not two but one.

[prisonchaplain]

Conclusions I am drawing thus far:

1. We agree that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons.

2. We agree that Jesus deferred to the Father.

3. We agree that Jesus is not the Father.

4. We do not agree that Jesus is uniquelly co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

5. We do not agree that Jesus and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are unified in the nature--beyond being in purposeful agreement.

6. We do not agree on the eternal destiny of Christ's most exalted followers.

7. We do not agree on what it means for humans to be sons/daughters of God.

8. We do agree that Scripture is a strong source of authority for our viewpoints.

9. Our view of the authority and condition of the post-apostolic church informs our doctrines of the nature of God and of humanity.

10. Finally, it surely is possible to have an intelligent, respectful, and informative conversation on these manners. :-)

[LDSChristian]

Conclusions I am drawing thus far:

1. We agree that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons.

2. We agree that Jesus deferred to the Father.

3. We agree that Jesus is not the Father.

4. We do not agree that Jesus is uniquelly co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

5. We do not agree that Jesus and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are unified in the nature--beyond being in purposeful agreement.

6. We do not agree on the eternal destiny of Christ's most exalted followers.

7. We do not agree on what it means for humans to be sons/daughters of God.

8. We do agree that Scripture is a strong source of authority for our viewpoints.

9. Our view of the authority and condition of the post-apostolic church informs our doctrines of the nature of God and of humanity.

10. Finally, it surely is possible to have an intelligent, respectful, and informative conversation on these manners. :-)

Not completely. They are one in nature. Being of the same nature/essence doesn't indicate one God. God the Father and Jesus Christ are both divine, can do all things except sin of course, are perfect. Jesus Christ taught the messages of God the Father. Think of it like a board of directors. Each member of the board together makes up the board of directors but the board of directors isn't a single person. They're each on that board with a common purpose and yet there are still positions such as a president and vice president. Sons and daughters of God is everyone seeing how we all, including the angels, were created in His image which includes Satan since he at one time was an angel. However, the literal sons and daughters of God are those that follow Jesus Christ. I might have those two backwards though. Yes, the scriptures are a strong source of authority however the final authority we have here on earth is the Spirit of God because it is just that, the Spirit of God.

Edited January 18, 2011 by LDSChristian

[Guest]

Not completely. They are one in nature. Being of the same nature/essence doesn't indicate one God. God the Father and Jesus Christ are both divine, can do all things except sin of course, are perfect. Jesus Christ taught the messages of God the Father. Think of it like a board of directors. Each member of the board together makes up the board of directors but the board of directors isn't a single purpose. They're each on that board with a common purpose and yet there are still positions such as a president and vice president. Sons and daughters of God is everyone seeing how we all, including the angels, were created in His image which includes Satan since he at one time was an angel. However, the literal sons and daughters of God are those that follow Jesus Christ. I might have those two backwards though. Yes, the scriptures are a strong source of authority however the final authority we have here on earth is the Spirit of God because it is just that, the Spirit of God.

Where you and I are hung up on is that when I say God the Father and God the Son are ONE GOD, you understand it to mean one person/being called GOD. PrisonChaplain has repeatedly pointed out that is is not Trinitarianism - this is Modalism. Simply defined as:

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.

When PC and I said they are ONE GOD we say they are 3 separate persons - 3 separate beings - but of one ESSENCE. Now, the difference we have with PC is that we believe that "ESSENCE" to be purpose whereas he believes it goes beyond that.

To PC. I though we agree on #4:

We do not agree that Jesus is uniquelly co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

[prisonchaplain]

Me thinks Anatess was a knowledgeable Catholic before she became a knowledgeable LDS member.

[HiJolly]

When PC and I said they are ONE GOD we say they are 3 separate persons - 3 separate beings - but of one ESSENCE. Now, the difference we have with PC is that we believe that "ESSENCE" to be purpose whereas he believes it goes beyond that.

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, if we equate 'ESSENCE' to 'INTELLIGENCE', then PC and Mormons agree on the trinity. Except, PC would have to say that God is completely *other* from mankind, whereas Mormons maintain that God is family of mankind.

But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

HiJolly

ps. ...thanks for 'thanking' me anatess, on that earlier comment...

Edited January 18, 2011 by HiJolly
anatess

[Guest]

Me thinks Anatess was a knowledgeable Catholic before she became a knowledgeable LDS member.

Whoa, PC. You are way magnanimous. The ICM nuns would be interested to know that somebody used my name in this sentence... well, probably not the LDS member part...:)

[LDSChristian]

Where you and I are hung up on is that when I say God the Father and God the Son are ONE GOD, you understand it to mean one person/being called GOD.

No, that's not what I thought you meant. I know you meant they are one God and not one person. God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ just as Ephesians 1:3 states and just as Jesus Christ stated when He told Mary He hadn't gone to "my God" (His words) yet.

[Guest]

No, that's not what I thought you meant. I know you meant they are one God and not one person. God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ just as Ephesians 1:3 states and just as Jesus Christ stated when He told Mary He hadn't gone to "my God" (His words) yet.

Okay, now I'm confused. Are you trying to explain that you don't believe that there is ONE GOD?

[LDSChristian]

Okay, now I'm confused. Are you trying to explain that you don't believe that there is ONE GOD?

If they were literally ONE God how could Jesus Christ be the Son of God? You're saying this:

Jesus Christ = Son of God (duh, we all know that one)

God = God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost

Which says:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost

If someone says "Christ being the Son of God is referring to God the Father in this case" you're still breaking up the "they are one God" concept because you'd still be putting God the Father as a separate God. If all 3 were ONE single God then you would have to say Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Where you and I are hung up on is that when I say God the Father and God the Son are ONE GOD, you understand it to mean one person/being called GOD. PrisonChaplain has repeatedly pointed out that is is not Trinitarianism - this is Modalism. Simply defined as:

When PC and I said they are ONE GOD we say they are 3 separate persons - 3 separate beings - but of one ESSENCE. Now, the difference we have with PC is that we believe that "ESSENCE" to be purpose whereas he believes it goes beyond that.

To PC. I though we agree on #4:

We do not agree that Jesus is uniquelly co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

I think there are many LDS that believe that "Essence" may go beyond just purpose. I may be one of them. There is a lot that we don't know in terms of the spiritual oneness the Godhead have. How is it that God knows my thoughts and the desires of my heart and through the power of the Holy Ghost be in all places without there being some kind of "essence" that is shared or at least connected.

If God can hear my thoughts and communicate with me immediately through the power of the Holy Ghost and prayer in Jesus' name without having to arrange for a special personal visit then I would assume that His connectivity with the other members of the Godhead is possible too and likely continually maintained without missing anything. Maybe the only disconnect we know about is the reference Jesus gave at the ninth hour because He had to pay it by Himself. I am not sure what to call that, but a shared "essence" probably isn't far off.

[Guest]

If they were literally ONE God how could Jesus Christ be the Son of God? You're saying this:

Jesus Christ = Son of God (duh, we all know that one)

God = God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost

Which says:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost

If someone says "Christ being the Son of God is referring to God the Father in this case" you're still breaking up the "they are one God" concept because you'd still be putting God the Father as a separate God. If all 3 were ONE single God then you would have to say Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself.

There you go again... making GOD = PERSON. Nope. It's not. The meaning are not interchangeable. You can be the Son of God while also being a God because God does not equal person.

A similar situation but not the same "concept" is that Isaac is a Son of the Prophet who is also a Prophet. This is possible because you are not talking about Prophet as a Person. When you say, The Prophet spoke in Conference last October, you can be talking about Prophet as a person. When you say, Follow the Prophet, you are talking about Prophet as a Priesthood office. Get it?

No, I'm not saying the "essence" of God is the same as Prophet. I'm just saying that you can refer to a word and mean it as the Person or as the essence and still be correct. Hence, the Son of God is also God.