How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[Jason_J]

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

Sure, LDSChristian is affirming that the Trinity teaches that the one God is three Persons, however he is showing that he doesn't understand what that means by saying things like this means that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost, or that Modalism is the belief that the Three are One Being (when it is really that they are "One person"), or when he argues against the phrase "one God", when the Book of Mormon says that they are "one God" too. The problem here is that when people explain logically why his arguments are wrong or straw men, he doesn't address those arguments, but instead resorts to name-calling and just repeating himself.

[LDSChristian]

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.

Being = person

I've addressed my argument against the trinity and modalism both. Modalism teaches they're one being/person (same thing) and the trinity teaches the triune god concept which is what the church and scriptures reject.

[Jason_J]

Being = person

Not according to the Trinity doctrine, as already explained in this thread. This is why your arguments against Trinitarianism aren't working.

And furthermore, if this was true for Trinitarians, then since they believe that the Three are "One Being", then if being=person, they would thus be saying that the Three are "One Person". But you've already stated that that's not how you understand the Trinity (as "one Person").

I've addressed my argument against the trinity and modalism both. Modalism teaches they're one being/person (same thing) and the trinity teaches the triune god concept which is what the church and scriptures reject.

No, you haven't addressed it because you're coming from the premise that "being=person". That's how we use it in English, however the Trinity doctrine was formulated over 1000 years ago, in Greek and Latin, and does not use that equivalence.

Modalism teaches that they're one person, Trinitarianism teaches that they are three distinct Persons. The "three distinct persons" part is why your argument that the Trinity teaches that Jesus is the Son of the Father, Himself, and the Holy Ghost doesn't work (and it doesn't "separate the Trinity" to assert that Jesus is the Son of only the Father, since the Trinity teaches that they are distinct persons), and you haven't addressed that. If you have, please cite the post in which you did.

The error of Modalism is therefore not saying that they are "one being", since Trinitarians believe that. It is that they say that they are "one person". This only makes sense if we understand that these groups are not saying that "being=person", as you said above.

Links Showing that Trinitarians Do not Use "Being=Person" Equivalence in the Doctrine

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding The Trinity

A Brief Definition of the Trinity

Edited January 23, 2011 by Jason_J

[pam]

Okay can we move on? Let's try and remember that sometimes it's hard to express what we are trying to say in written word on a forum.

This bickering over wording needs to stop. On both sides. If not, I will be forced to close this thread.

[Jason_J]

Okay can we move on? Let's try and remember that sometimes it's hard to express what we are trying to say in written word on a forum.

This bickering over wording needs to stop. On both sides. If not, I will be forced to close this thread.

I agree. I also think that this thread has run its course and perhaps may well be closed.

I would just like to say that it really isn't about "bickering" for Trinitarians. The words "person" and "being" are used in a specific way in the Trinity doctrine, and it is the misunderstanding of this (i.e. saying that "person"="being") that leads to these discussions, and confusing it with Modalism.

I would like to close with a link to an article I wrote on my blog, which further expounds (in addition to the articles I already linked to) on this important issue in any Trinity vs. Godhead dialogue:

The Traditional Concept of the Trinity

[Guest]

I agree. I also think that this thread has run its course and perhaps may well be closed.

I would just like to say that it really isn't about "bickering" for Trinitarians. The words "person" and "being" are used in a specific way in the Trinity doctrine, and it is the misunderstanding of this (i.e. saying that "person"="being") that leads to these discussions, and confusing it with Modalism.

I would like to close with a link to an article I wrote on my blog, which further expounds (in addition to the articles I already linked to) on this important issue in any Trinity vs. Godhead dialogue:

The Traditional Concept of the Trinity

Hi Jason, that's an excellent article! I just read it. Also, the comment below it is an excellent response as well. I love that he pointed out the "Is Jesus God?" question that a lot of LDS get hung up on. When I'm asked that question, I have to make sure I understand the context to which it is asked so I can reply accordingly.

[Maureen]

Thanks Jason, that is a great article. I particularly like “God is one but not solitary.”

M.

[Jason_J]

Thanks Jason, that is a great article. I particularly like “God is one but not solitary.”

M.

Yes, I like that part too. :)

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

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. The long way of saying that would be to say Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost. Has anyone else caught the flaw with the trinity people today believe in? Some people say "well in this case it's talking about God the Father" but that would take away from their own belief about the traditional trinity. We, however, know the trinity (biblical term is the godhead) teaches they are of one purpose.

Ephesians 1:2-3

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Notice how verse 3 says "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..."

Why do people of other faiths not know that?

I think many cling to the flawed and biblical trinity creed because they think if there is more that one god in the universe that we are pagans.

The creed was made to separate the polytheist pagans from the Christians.

If you look at the Old Testament and New Testament you can clearly see that the ancient Church and the Church in Christ's time was a henotheist faith, that means they believed in the existence of gods but only worshiped one God Elohim the eternal Father.

This is why you see Christ telling people not to believe in him but he who sent me. He also says he who is sent is not greater then he who sent him. Christ is the same in purpose, power, glory, and knowledge as the Father but he still submits to God even though he is exalted and a god himself.

No verse shows the obvious fact that there is many gods then Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt not have any gods before me," If there was only one exalted being in the universe then this is a pointless commandment to make, some argue that he is talking about false gods but this seems a stretch to me.

If there is only man made false Gods he would of said "Thou shalt not make and gods" or thou shalt not put any false gods before me"

This verse shows in my opinion that the Godhead itself acknowledges that there is other exalted beings besides the One True God Elohim our Heavenly Father.

Of course when you are taught monotheism from birth and told that the Bible says there is only one God then it is hard to no accept whatever creed defends your traditions.

Only deep scripture study and prayer to receive conformation of the truth from the Holy Ghost allowed me to fully overcome the false teaching of the trinity creed once I converted to the LDS Church.

[prisonchaplain]

Henotheism probably is an appropriate word for LDS theology. However, from the perspective of Judaism, Islam, and the larger Christian world, the "gods" of the Bible were not living ones, but were mere idols, of wood, clay, and metal. So often, the OT prophets mocked those "gods." "Do they see? Can they hear? Why don't they answer?" Let's not confuse the biblical monotheists, who rejected and despised the false worship of man-make religious artifacts with folk who would worship one god over others. Such a faith would hardly even distinguish the Hebrews from their neighbors. I suppose you could say they worshipped the best god--but that hardly comports with the greater message of the OT, and of the Bible in general.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

False gods are idols or graven images the 2nd commandment forbids the worship of false gods aka idols aka graven images.

The first commandment explicitly forbids the worship of other gods, and given in the context of the ban of idol (or false god worship) by the second commandment I see this as God's acknowledgement of other exalted beings, and his forbidding his covenant people form worshiping them instead of him.

I understand we disagree on this but the context of the first two commandments implies the early Hebrew belief in many gods with one Supreme God in my opinion.

It is apparent that some time during the recorded history of Israel that this did change, to me it seems that it is a change that happened after the writing of the Torah not during but there is evidence that points to the Hebrews henotheist origins.

[prisonchaplain]

This is an on-going scholarly controversy. My off-the-cuff thought is that any recognition by early Hebrews that other gods existed was simply symptomatic of their frequent "whoring after false gods." In other words, absolute monotheism was God's revelation and covenant for them...anything else was heresy--whether they actually held to it or not.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

This is an on-going scholarly controversy. My off-the-cuff thought is that any recognition by early Hebrews that other gods existed was simply symptomatic of their frequent "whoring after false gods." In other words, absolute monotheism was God's revelation and covenant for them...anything else was heresy--whether they actually held to it or not.

I just can't accept monotheist as his intention given the context of the Old Testament. I know this is a revolving door issue and neither side has any hard core, earth shattering, evidence so it is one side seeing is as monotheist and the other seeing it as henotheist.

Of course as a Mormon I am henotheist myself so I accept that I am not an unbiased observer.

God Bless!

[prisonchaplain]

I'll begin this post by admitting that some Jewish scholars see henotheism in the early Hebrew writings. On the other hand, others reject this outright. For a very conservative, very monotheistic take see:

The History of Monotheism - Chassidic Masters - Parsha

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I'll begin this post by admitting that some Jewish scholars see henotheism in the early Hebrew writings. On the other hand, others reject this outright. For a very conservative, very monotheistic take see:

The History of Monotheism - Chassidic Masters - Parsha

Yes, it is true that there are supporters and opponents to the henotheist roots of the Hebrews in the end though there isn't any earth shattering evidence that can sway one side or the other.

So it is an agree to disagree situation, I respect your God given right to believe what you understand as the truth of the scripture and I hope you feel the same way about my right to understand the scripture the way I do.

So many feel that a disagreement on interpretation of the scripture is grounds for argument and hostility towards each other. This is ironic since our Savior taught compassion, love, and tolerance should unite us.

[Justice]

Which is why I find it odd that the early Christians of this country combined to persecute the early Mormons. As Joseph Smith said, if they viewed the Mormons as wrong or in error then, as Christians, they should have sought to teach and recover them. Instead, they all combined to persecute, molest, beat, steal from, falsely accuse, and even murder the Mormons.

Even a cursory look at that time period will tell you that those who professed to be Christian were not acting Christian. Which, brings up my point for this post...

If they weren't acting under the Spirit of Christ, whose spirit were they acting under? They accused the Mormons of having devils, and being fooled by devils. Yet, their actions clearly indicate that they were the ones acting under the spirit of the devil.

Were not Christ and His followers accused of the exact same things? When, in fact, those that persecuted and stoned the even early followers of Christ were the ones acting under the spirit of the devil.

It's amazing how history repeats itself. It's even more amazing how some fail to see it.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Which is why I find it odd that the early Christians of this country combined to persecute the early Mormons. As Joseph Smith said, if they viewed the Mormons as wrong or in error then, as Christians, they should have sought to teach and recover them. Instead, they all combined to persecute, molest, beat, steal from, falsely accuse, and even murder the Mormons.

Even a cursory look at that time period will tell you that those who professed to be Christian were not acting Christian. Which, brings up my point for this post...

If they weren't acting under the Spirit of Christ, whose spirit were they acting under? They accused the Mormons of having devils, and being fooled by devils. Yet, their actions clearly indicate that they were the ones acting under the spirit of the devil.

Were not Christ and His followers accused of the exact same things? When, in fact, those that persecuted and stoned the even early followers of Christ were the ones acting under the spirit of the devil.

It's amazing how history repeats itself. It's even more amazing how some fail to see it.

I always wonder the same thing myself. How do followers of Jesus Christ ever think persecution, violence, or murder are ever acceptable.

I have never seen Christ persecute, hate, commit violence against, or murder anyone ever. Yet some many eagerly do these things in his name!?!?

[prisonchaplain]

So much of the persecution of Mormons and others in earlier American history--even up through the early history of my church movement (pentecostal) was wrong headed. They jailed some of our early healing evangelists for practicing medicine without a license. Rotten eggs and fruit frequently greeted our meetings. Many of our members were put out of their churches for attending the revivals and taking part in the experiences. Of course, none of this compares to the murders and violence your pioneers experienced. New movements generally face persecution. You got a particularly violent form of it for several reasons.

It does little good to explain or defend that which is wrong. Often "heresy hunters" get full of themselves and do more harm than good. Jesus said it would be so.

This continues to be a great thread and an excellent discussion, Kudos all around.

[LDSChristian]

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

It does little good to explain or defend that which is wrong. Often "heresy hunters" get full of themselves and do more harm than good. Jesus said it would be so.

This continues to be a great thread and an excellent discussion, Kudos all around.

I agree with you 100% here! The problem is that there are good Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists out there that show love and compassion to there fellow man.

There is also bad Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Atheists out there that have hate in there heart and violence in there voice and minds.

Your religion is nothing more that an set of beliefs, each of us has one and each has there reasons for having it.

A religion is just a description of belief, your attitude reflects the truth of whether you are following after God or Satan. Remember that "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil." (Moroni 7:12-14)