Son of God?

[Maureen]

Here is how I understand the concept of the Trinity.

Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct "people." But they are a different "species" than humans. But, there are only 3 of this "species" called Divine. They do not "share" a body nor are they 3 people in one body. Only Jesus has a body--Father and Holy Ghost do not have bodies. That is why they are one--they are a distinct "species" and are the only ones of this "species."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Maureen or PC. I used quotes because that's how I am able to comprehend the Trinity, not that Tritarians use those words. I understand that Tritarians are very exact on the wording they use to describe the Trinity.

beefche, your wording is different but you essentially have the right idea. Scripture tells us that there is only one God and God is divine, therefore there is one who is divine (species). The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and they are one God.

M.

[Maureen]

...Maureen accused me of not making the effort to understand but that's what I've been trying to do the whole time...

I was not thinking of you maiku, I may have been thinking of someone else though. But I was also just trying to express my appreciation to Dravin for his efforts in understanding.

M.

[Shelly200]

Jason_J gives a good explanation of the definition for "being" in the Trinitarian concept being different from the definition that the LDS members are using, which is confusing everyone. It can be found on this thread on page 29.

The defintion that Trinitarians use for the word "being" is an older definition, that is mostly not in use anymore. The LDS members are trying to use the more modern definition to fit the Trinitarian formula, and it isn't working. The concept of the Trinity is centuries old, and Trinitarians have kept the same wording for its explanation throughout the years. We are all trying to use the same words, but put different meanings behind them and then getting confused/frustrated when we all keep running into each other and making no progress.

But I believe some people are making headway with the idea. Once again, it is a difficult concept to grasp if one hasn't grown up with it, or heard it explained before, or if it's unfamiliar. In the end, most Trinitarians don't think about the concept of the Trinity very often in depth. They believe it, and live their lives accordingly. I think the Catholic Church does a more thorough job of bringing the Trinity into its liturgies and prayers -- there are prayers specific to each Person within the Trinity, to the Trinity as a whole, and the Trinity is mentioned very frequently -- but still, most Catholics don't dwell on the nuances of trying to work the concept out in their minds. For some, yes, it is blind faith, pure and simple. There are people in every religion who take it on blind faith. But for others it is something they have researched, deemed True, and then moved on. We're not all St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived his life researching, learning, and writing about theological issues.

The important thing, more important than 3 equaling 1 (which we understand doesn't make logical human sense... we say it is a mystery, and that God is above our human sense, so He doesn't have to fit into our idea of "logic"), in my opinion, is that God alone is divine; humans are not of the essence/being/nature/person/species/any similar word that God is. We are completely separate from Him and His angels. We believe we cannot become God, or become like Him, through our own means, through any sort of progression. This concept is extremely important in the non-LDS definition of who God is.

[rameumptom]

My first exposure to Christianity was in my late 20's and it was basically Baptist, The Roman Road, Navigators and all that. I was not a pew warmer and actually studied the Bible. It just feels so icky to have been lied to by people I was told to trust and then find that they basically withheld information.

I mean, if they went to seminary and all that, how could they not have been taught at least Latin? I mean how can someone feel they are qualified to preach if they do not know the whole truth? This is very disillusioning.

Hala,

They didn't lie. They did the best they could without prophets and apostles to guide them. There was a lot going on in early Christianity. The Jews had already changed to a strong monotheism and away from the monolatry they once held for centuries (monolatry: belief in many gods, but worship only one).

Greek philosophy (aka Hellenism) was very strong among early Christians, especially from the 2nd century AD on. Since the Jews and Greek philosophers insisted there is only one God, many Christians felt they had to also fit into this mold, and started re-reading the scriptures in an entirely new way.

They rejected the earlier Christian beliefs, such as those of Origen - who taught that God and Jesus were both Gods, but Jesus was subservient to the Father. Later Christian leaders rejected this thought (Athanasius, Augustine, etc), and considered Origen a heretic. This is rather sad, since Origen was THE apologist for the main Christian faith of his day! As noted before, he was going with what the Bible states time after time: God is an anthropomorphic God. Jesus/Jehovah is a divine God/being under the direction of his Father. They are one, but are physically separate beings.

Your pastors did not lie to you. The Trinity has been the tradition for 1600 years. In colleges for pastors, they do not teach the things I've brought up here. They teach them how to interpret the Bible according to the creeds, rather than the ancient ways.

There are many Bible scholars who first went to theological seminaries for degrees, who later fell away from Christianity and became agnostic when they went to graduate school where they do teach this stuff. Why? Because they felt that modern Christianity, which they grew up learning, was nothing like the ancient things taught! Others that have gone this route have learned to keep an open mind between the modern "traditional" Christianity, and those things actually taught anciently, realizing that the important part of Christianity is to believe in Christ, repent of sins, and keep the two great commandments (supported by the many lesser commandments that lead us to it).

Even the modern LDS Church's beliefs are not exactly the same as the ancient Jewish/Christian faith, but that is because we believe in modern prophets, to whom God can give new direction. Still, our beliefs are much closer to the ancient ways than those of traditional Christianity.

[rameumptom]

Shelly, you are right that if one is not raised with the concept, it can be difficult to grasp, and that definitions change over time (such as for the word "being"). That said, I find many Trinitarians, including many pastors, who view the Trinity in a modalistic manner. IOW, many traditional Christians do not understand the Trinity, either. Why? Because modalism is a heresy.

Anytime someone describes the Trinity like an egg (one egg with yolk, white and shell), or three fingers on one hand, or three people in one car, etc., they are describing modalism.

So, it isn't just a difficult concept for Mormons, but also for many Trinitarians, as well.

[prisonchaplain]

But here's the thing, I'm not trying to go round and round, or be confrontational. Maureen accused me of not making the effort to understand but that's what I've been trying to do the whole time. I respect all of your beliefs while at the same time trying to understand them.

So after 30 something pages, this is my current understanding:

Trinitarians (and others who share this belief) believe that God is somehow 3 persons and 1 being but it is a mystery, and we don't know how that works, correct?

Are these 3 persons in one being comparable to 3 personalities in one human?

First, I do not doubt but that everyone is trying to understand each other. My sense is that you mostly do understand it--and yet, it keeps coming back to how are they three and how are the one? What we can know are a few parameters.

1. God is so much one that he is truly one God-being. In this he is distinct from everyone else. He is the Creator, all else the created.

2. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit were created by the Father (and mother, as speculation might have it).

3. Yet they are three persons--so much so that Jesus can have a body, whereas the Father does not. So much so that the baptism of Jesus is not a comical farce where God is playing three roles simultaneously. So much so that the Son can pray to the Father, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. So much so that when Jesus bore our sins and cried out, "Father...why have you forsaken me?" This cry had powerful meaning.

For those who embrace Trinity, art and poetry have been the product of meditation on the teaching. For those who would analyze it scientifically, or by formal logic, frustration abounds. Catholics historically call it a beautiful, divine mystery.

Critics find it confusing for various reasons, and come up with answers they find more satisfying--be it modalism (Oneness Pentecostals), Arianism (aka Subordinationism--Jehovah's Witnesses), or the LDS Godhead. It is to be expected that everyone discussing this will be slow to change, since we address the very nature of the God we all adore.

[prisonchaplain]

Eleven cubed!

Actually, one cubed is not a bad mathematical analogy.

[Shelly200]

2. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit were created by the Father (and mother, as speculation might have it).

What speculation are you refering to? I'm not aware of any mainline Protestants or Catholics who speculate about a mother to do any creating.

[Shelly200]

Shelly, you are right that if one is not raised with the concept, it can be difficult to grasp, and that definitions change over time (such as for the word "being"). That said, I find many Trinitarians, including many pastors, who view the Trinity in a modalistic manner. IOW, many traditional Christians do not understand the Trinity, either. Why? Because modalism is a heresy.

Anytime someone describes the Trinity like an egg (one egg with yolk, white and shell), or three fingers on one hand, or three people in one car, etc., they are describing modalism.

So, it isn't just a difficult concept for Mormons, but also for many Trinitarians, as well.

Yes, most Earthly examples won't work in encompassing the Trinity, because the Trinity isn't of Earth. Those examples are used mostly to teach children and people who are coming from a non-Trinitarian background in order to show the simpliest, most basic concept. And I'm sure there are many Trinitarians who sometimes fall into the trap of heresy, but really, the majority of lay Christians don't try to unravel the mystery all that much or often.

The only example I've heard that comes closer to the concept of the Trinity than say, three fingers on a hand, would be H2O... can be a solid, liquid, or gas... but is always H2O. Even this is not perfect, because the same gallon of H20 cannot really be all three phases at the same time (and Trinitarians believe God exists eternally in all three Persons), but the simplest, most basic concept is there I think.

Any thoughts on this example, anyone?

[prisonchaplain]

What speculation are you refering to? I'm not aware of any mainline Protestants or Catholics who speculate about a mother to do any creating.

True enough. Some LDS thinkers speculate about a Heavenly Mother. I'm not aware of anything that would be considered teachable or official doctrine, though. Mormon Doctrine on Heavenly Mother

Edited December 20, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Justice]

No it does not mean the Father has a body too. Jesus, was the only one to take on humanity. One God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

About the time understanding the Trinity seems within my grasp, I read something like this, and then I'm totally lost again.

I'm not going to give up, though.

[Justice]

The only example I've heard that comes closer to the concept of the Trinity than say, three fingers on a hand, would be H2O... can be a solid, liquid, or gas... but is always H2O. Even this is not perfect, because the same gallon of H20 cannot really be all three phases at the same time (and Trinitarians believe God exists eternally in all three Persons), but the simplest, most basic concept is there I think.

Any thoughts on this example, anyone?

Yes, this is the one that brings me closest to understanding, except, as you mentioned, all 3 have to be present in the same condition at all times. That part of it is hard to grasp, but gets me closer than anything else I've heard.

[annewandering]

Ice cubes in a steaming hot cup of chocolate? One of my favorite drinks

[Shelly200]

True enough. Some LDS thinkers speculate about a Heavenly Mother. I'm not aware of anything that would be considered teachable or official doctrine, though. Mormon Doctrine on Heavenly Mother

I thought that's what you were meaning, but I just don't want the LDS reading it to get confused, since your post was on non-LDS doctrine; I didn't want anyone to think this was a legitimate speculation by any Catholics or Protestants. As far as I know, I've never heard any non-LDS make this speculation within the Christian community.

[Vort]

I didn't want anyone to think this was a legitimate speculation by any Catholics or Protestants.

Not sure what "legitimate speculation" means. Apart from the bare fact of her existence, we Latter-day Saints have no revealed knowledge at all about "heavenly Mother". Any speculation thereto is thus illegitimate.

[Shelly200]

Yes, this is the one that brings me closest to understanding, except, as you mentioned, all 3 have to be present in the same condition at all times. That part of it is hard to grasp, but gets me closer than anything else I've heard.

Exactly. No Earthly example will ever be sufficient, but I think this comes closer than any other I've seen.

As for your understanding: I'm not gonna say "Don't give up!" Though I want to. I feel as if I can't say it because I don't expect you, or me, or Pope Benedict XVI to fully and completely understand the concept while still living. It is a mystery that we can partially understand while on Earth, but won't fully grasp until the afterlife. Scholars spend their entire lives delving into the intricacies of Christian dogma, and the beauty of it is that there is always something more to learn.

It's good that you are trying to understand the concept in the first place; you've gone farther than many people would. Check out a book, Youtube video, or blog post from Protestant and Catholic sources; they're out there and they're numerous. (I highly, highly *highly* recommend videos by Fr. Robert Barron. He has a ministry called Word on Fire, and they have a bunch of Youtube videos in which he discusses everything under the sun, especially movies, books, and Bob Dylan [he really likes Dylan] and shares them in light of the Catholic faith.) Heck, if you're feeling really crazy, you can attend a Mass once. Just to see what it's like and gain some perspective on the Catholic view of things. I have an LDS friend myself who I'm thinking of asking if I can go to church with her one Sunday (as long as I've gone to Mass Saturday night - a precept of the Church), so I can see a service for myself and maybe sit it on one of the Sunday School classes that visitors can go to. No better way to learn about someone than from the source. Keep up the journey!

[Vort]

Though I obviously reject the idea of the "holy Trinity" and tend to take a jaded view of anything explained as an "unknowable mystery", I feel no compulsion to correct or dissuade those Christians who hold to such views. What puts me in an eye-rolling mood is to hear Mysterious Trinitarians mock and revile LDS doctrines because "they don't make any sense". Uh, okay, talk to me after you've reconciled the admittedly irreconcilable problems in your own doctrinal beliefs.

[Shelly200]

Not sure what "legitimate speculation" means. Apart from the bare fact of her existence, we Latter-day Saints have no revealed knowledge at all about "heavenly Mother". Any speculation thereto is thus illegitimate.

That phrase wasn't in reference to the LDS idea of a heavenly mother; it was more to say that if, by chance, an LDS person had heard of, or could come up with an example of, a Protestant or Catholic making references to a mother goddess, that such claims are extremely rare and not taken seriously within orthodox Christianity.

The whole point, from the beginning, was to separate the idea of a mother in Heaven; this is a strictly LDS doctrine, and not a Protestant or Catholic one. I didn't want anyone getting confused and thinking this is doctrine taught in any orthodox Protestant or Catholic circles.

I honestly don't know much on the topic from an LDS viewpoint anyway. I've heard many different ideas from different people. The best I can come up with is that it isn't spoken of, but it is understood, that there is a Heavenly companion for God the Father... He didn't make all these spirit children on His own. Other than that I get different explanations as to how that matters/relates to ourselves.

[Vort]

That phrase wasn't in reference to the LDS idea of a heavenly mother; it was more to say that if, by chance, an LDS person had heard of, or could come up with an example of, a Protestant or Catholic making references to a mother goddess, that such claims are extremely rare and not taken seriously within orthodox Christianity.

The whole point, from the beginning, was to separate the idea of a mother in Heaven; this is a strictly LDS doctrine, and not a Protestant or Catholic one. I didn't want anyone getting confused and thinking this is doctrine taught in any orthodox Protestant or Catholic circles.

When I was in Italy, I asked some Catholics why they prayed to Mary. They looked at me, wide-eyed and somewhat bemused by the naivete of my question, and responded with what, to them, was a self-evident and exceedingly obvious truth: "Well, she's the mother of God, and thus the mother of us all."

If that is not a doctrine of a "heavenly mother" -- a being of supernatural power to whom we pray for grace and who is indeed our very mother -- then I don't know what is.

[annewandering]

I wonder if that is doctrine or just their interpretation of doctrine. It is kinda sweet they believe that, doctrine or not.

[Shelly200]

I wonder if that is doctrine or just their interpretation of doctrine. It is kinda sweet they believe that, doctrine or not.

To what are you referring? The Trinity? Once again I say: let's face it, it's *all* about interpretation. The Catholic Church interprets and claims to be right. Each Protestant church interprets and claims to be right. The LDS church interprets and claims to be right. Since God didn't come down to Earth and say: "Okay, guys, it's like this: I'm up in Heaven with the Son and the Holy Spirit, we're made up like this and this and this..." Then all we have to go on is what we do have and the way it is interpreted.

[Dravin]

To what are you referring?

I'm fairly sure she's referring to Vort's experience with the Catholics. Her doctrine versus interpretation of doctrine distinction is, I suspect, her way of differentiating between official Catholic orthodoxy and a possible personal take that isn't shared by said official Catholic orthodoxy.

[prisonchaplain]

I've just made a discovery that may inform this discussion. Often LDS will discuss the Trinity in such a way that it sounds like modalism they are criticizing. Some here say that is how some have explained to them. This is certainly possible.

However, I discovered that the 2nd largest LDS-restorationist sect, now known as the Community of Christ, has indeed embraced a kind of modalism. I had thought they became traditional, and truly accepted the Trinity. Apparently, their doctrine is closest to modalism.

See: The Community of Christ -- a LDS Restorationist denomination

Could it be that this schismatic group, with its shared early history with LDS, might lead some modern LDS to believe that the CoC doctrine is Trinitarian, thus the misunderstanding?

[Shelly200]

When I was in Italy, I asked some Catholics why they prayed to Mary. They looked at me, wide-eyed and somewhat bemused by the naivete of my question, and responded with what, to them, was a self-evident and exceedingly obvious truth: "Well, she's the mother of God, and thus the mother of us all."

If that is not a doctrine of a "heavenly mother" -- a being of supernatural power to whom we pray for grace and who is indeed our very mother -- then I don't know what is.

Ah yes, Mary.

Catholics *do* say that Mary is the mother of us all. But not in the way that the LDS church has to conclude that in order for God the Father to create all of His spirit children, He would need a fellow progressed god to help him do it.

Mary is not our literal, biological mother. She is our mother in the sense that Christ named her mother over all of us from the cross (the RCC interprets -- yes, interprets -- Christ's giving of Mary to John, who we believe is not Mary's real son, as Him giving Mary to all His people), and that she is the mother of the Lord. We pray to all of the saints in heaven, because we believe they can hear us, want to help us, and are in the very presence of God. Who better to ask for intercession than someone in the very presence of the One who can do all things?

We believe that Mary is special and is especially beloved by God. He, in the Person of Christ, honored His mother and so we honor His mother. She cannot grant prayers, only God does that, but we can ask her to pray to Him for us. Just as we ask our fellow brother and sister Christians on Earth to pray to Him for us. But Mary is not a goddess, is of the same species as all humans, is not equal to God, cannot grant prayers of her own power, does not share in creation, did not exist before she was born on Earth, and is not our literal mother. So I think the ideas are very different.

[Shelly200]

I'm fairly sure she's referring to Vort's experience with the Catholics. Her doctrine versus interpretation of doctrine distinction is, I suspect, her way of differentiating between official Catholic orthodoxy and a possible personal take that isn't shared by said official Catholic orthodoxy.

If that's so, I apologize. When I refreshed the page her comment came up before Vort's for some reason.

But actually, it is the official Catholic take that Mary is "the mother of us all" and no Catholic would be confused if someone said that. (In fact, it is quite common. Mary has many titles. We say she is mother of a lot of things.) We just do not mean she is *literally* our mother.