How many Gods DO we believe in?

[Alex]

On the subject of the trinity, the catholic water/ice/steam analogy shows God as an individual who takes on different physical forms. I've never liked that understanding of God, because it means he talks to himself in the NT for one thing but it's the whole costume change notion I detest- I find that idea far more confusing than the LDS view of the Godhead.

 

Good old Donny Osmond said it succinctly when it comes to the LDS church:

" we do in fact believe in the Trinity, but it is the clarification of the separate and distinct individuals within the Trinity that separates us from others."

 

 

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Alex said:

On the subject of the trinity, the catholic water/ice/steam analogy shows God as an individual who takes on different physical forms. I've never liked that understanding of God, because it means he talks to himself in the NT for one thing but it's the whole costume change notion I detest- I find that idea far more confusing than the LDS view of the Godhead.

That analogy does not illustrate the Trinity, but an idea known as modulsim (which both Catholics and LDS view as being false). 

[Alex]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That analogy does not illustrate the Trinity, but an idea known as modulsim (which both Catholics and LDS view as being false). 

Oh, good to know. I honestly thought modulism was purely related to design / architecture in 3D environments. Have never heard it applied to that analogy.

Hmm but now I think of it, modules in courses at university etc.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

Oh, good to know. I honestly thought modulism was purely related to design / architecture in 3D environments. Have never heard it applied to that analogy.

Hmm but now I think of it, modules in courses at university etc.

There are many uses of the same word.  We just talked about the differences earlier this thread.

Anyway, actual Trinitarian beliefs do acknowledge Christ, the Father, and the Spirit are 3 different persons.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[prisonchaplain]

54 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So... would you define this special substance as "wisdom from aging" or something like that?     Admittedly, I've never really understood what Trinitarians are defining as this special substance.      

From the LDS standpoint, 'age' doesn't really factor into thought... it's kind of strikes me as "my infinity is greater than your infinity" thing.

I'm not sure anyone has attempted to describe God's divine nature. God is that which was not made. He made us. So, despite our eternal destiny, we can never be that which made us. We will always be that which He made.

[zil]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

It may be that we pray more to Jesus, even in our casual utterances.  "Jesus, help me." "Dear, sweet Jesus!" (said as a call of dependence, rather than an exasperation), Sometimes we'll even call out to the Spirit. "Holy Spirit, come now with peace and your presence . . . "  So, while it's probably true that the Father receives the greatest share of our prayers, we do call out to Jesus more...and we certainly sing adoration to him a lot--especially in contemporary praise and worship music.

FYI, depending on the details, such use of the name of the Lord may sound, to LDS ears, especially life-long LDS ears, as taking the name of the Lord in vain.  I'm not saying it is that, just that it may sound like that to them.  I do not hear Mormons saying these sorts of things - they sound too casual, too much like a substitute for an expletive rather than a sincere prayer.  If a Mormon were to say a quick prayer, it would likely also be silent, and more likely to start with "Lord" than with "Jesus".  Just mentioning for comparative purposes.

[bytebear]

The word "God" is a singular that describes a collection.  We know of one specific collection called the Godhead made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but there is only one Godhead.   And there is only one God.   Think of it like the word Family.  There is one human family, but it's made up of infinite people.  The most important people in one's life are generally their mother, father, brothers, sisters, children.  So, God as a unit contains infinite persons who make up God, but we specifically have dealings with only the Godhead, made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  Those specific persons have direct relations to us, and for us, they are unique in their role.  The Father because he is literally the father of our spirits, and the Son because he is the one and only Savior and allow us redemption. 

[prisonchaplain]

@zil To double-down on your line of thought, I'm wondering if some of the modern praise and worship styling appear very odd to LDS. The combination of casual clothing, tattoos, piercings, and demonstrative, emotional, relational--almost as if Jesus were a BFF could seem awfully presumptuous. Yet, I see the tears, and sense the inner healing that many are experiencing, and find the experiences very normal. Then there is the common experience that Pentecostals share with you--feeling impressions from the Spirit that direct us. To many Christians, the idea that God speaks to our hearts is bizarre. It's sometimes difficult to discern what is church culture and when we should do some serious soul-searching about our practices.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@zil To double-down on your line of thought, I'm wondering if some of the modern praise and worship styling appear very odd to LDS. The combination of casual clothing, tattoos, piercings, and demonstrative, emotional, relational--almost as if Jesus were a BFF could seem awfully presumptuous. Yet, I see the tears, and sense the inner healing that many are experiencing, and find the experiences very normal. Then there is the common experience that Pentecostals share with you--feeling impressions from the Spirit that direct us. To many Christians, the idea that God speaks to our hearts is bizarre. It's sometimes difficult to discern what is church culture and when we should do some serious soul-searching about our practices.

I have no doubt many religious practices would seem odd to someone who had not been exposed to anything similar.   And that's OK.  If a person can't work through the outward stuff to learn what's going on inside, then (I think) we just don't worry about it - that's their issue.  But hopefully a lot of people would be willing, when afforded the opportunity, to work through the external stuff to learn what's going on inside - regardless of whether they agree with any of it.  Someone who is introducing a "newbie" to their religion, and the newbie, will have a more positive experience if they're aware that what's normal to the long-timer may seem downright weird to the newbie.   (That was my intent in posting, just to increase your knowledge so that if you happened to be with a Mormon who reacted badly to your expressions, it wouldn't come as a total shock, and you could already have in mind how to explain to them the feeling behind such expressions.)

[Blueskye2]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not from the LDS viewpoint, so the clarification is necessary. 

But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three parts that are united by a substance. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Alex]

12 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three persons. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature. 

If you believe this, how do you reconcile Christ talking to the father?

[Just_A_Guy]

Aren’t all of us Christians really just taking different roads to explain why our concept of Jesus as both a god and Son of God, doesn’t violate the Old Testament shemat?  Maybe we should all just embrace each other in our mutual heresy here.  

Edited November 30, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Aren’t all of us Christians really just taking different roads to explain why our concept of Jesus as both a god and Son of God, doesn’t violate the Old Testament shemat?  Maybe we should all just embrace each other in our mutual heresy here.  

Like I said, if you remove modern day revelation and just study the Bible, Mormon conceptions of the Godhead are no less biblical than what was formulated with the Nicene Creed.  

Which indeed makes it kind of stupid when various other Christians use the Trinity as an excuse to claim that Mormons are not Christian.  This goes double, as it appears that many, many Christians out there have no real understanding of the Trinity to begin with and have personal beliefs in modalism, social trinitarianism, etc.  Like Robert Millet said, Mormons are often called "not Christian" for beliefs which are freely tolerated when personally held by other Christians . . . 

(sorry if my tone comes off as abrasive - working on filling out lawsuit paperwork while typing here!)

Edited November 30, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[JohnsonJones]

45 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three persons. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature. 

Catechism from the Vatican

 

Quote

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".⁸³ The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."⁸⁴ In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."⁸⁵

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."⁸⁶ "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."⁸⁷ They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."⁸⁸ The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."⁸⁹ Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."⁹⁰ "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."⁹¹

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

 

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity

The above explanation also shows why a Catholic has no problem with the three separate manifestations at the Baptism found in the New Testament, because it is seen as it is interpreted by the Vatican above.

PS: This is as per the Vatican, not necessarily other offshoots of Catholicism or Protestants.  It seems there are various interpretations of the trinity, even among those who claim to believe in the trinity.  In that regard, believe it or not, there are some Mormons here that actually down and out sound almost Trinitarian in some of their explanations, as they don't deviate half as much from each other as some of the more far out explanations of the trinity do for some sects.

Modality is just one of the explanations some utilize in their ideas of what the trinity espouses, but there are many others.  Sometimes it seems there are as many explanations of what the trinity is as there are different major sects (Methodist, Baptist, Calvinists) that claim to believe in the trinity.  Sometimes the differences are very small, sometimes they are very big.

Edited November 30, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Blueskye2]

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Catechism from the Vatican

 

The above explanation also shows why a Catholic has no problem with the three separate manifestations at the Baptism found in the New Testament, because it is seen as it is interpreted by the Vatican above.

PS: This is as per the Vatican, not necessarily other offshoots of Catholicism or Protestants.  It seems there are various interpretations of the trinity, even among those who claim to believe in the trinity.  In that regard, believe it or not, there are some Mormons here that actually down and out sound almost Trinitarian in some of their explanations, as they don't deviate half as much from each other as some of the more far out explanations of the trinity do for some sects.

Modality is just one of the explanations some utilize in their ideas of what the trinity espouses, but there are many others.  Sometimes it seems there are as many explanations of what the trinity is as there are different major sects (Methodist, Baptist, Calvinists) that claim to believe in the trinity.  Sometimes the differences are very small, sometimes they are very big.

“The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another”

...is the support for my point. 

The Trinity is sometimes better explained in the negative, as in, what God is not. Ie, God is not three Gods, but one, etc.

Anyway, I should stop typing because my fingers didn’t type what my head was thinking.

To clarify, Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons who share one divine substance. One being, not three beings. 

This has been a great thread really, as so often LDS threads on the Trinity devolve into Trinity bashing.  This one is truly refreshing. But since this is the LDS discussion forum and I get scolded for discussing non-LDS subjects in this forum, I’ll see y’all on some other thread.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three persons. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature. 

The bolded is not Trinitarian doctrine at all.  Rather the Trinity specifically states that they are 3 different persons:   "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. "  -- Athanasian Creed.  Yes, it is believed that they are 1 God, but still 3 persons.

 

[Blueskye2]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The bolded is not Trinitarian doctrine at all.  Rather the Trinity specifically states that they are 3 different persons:   "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. "  -- Athanasian Creed.  Yes, it is believed that they are 1 God, but still 3 persons.

 

Right, that is the part where I just said my fingers aren’t typing what is in my head...I have edited my post.

[Bad Karma]

[Bad Karma]

Ok, ok, all humor aside, *WE* believe in ONE GOD. Of course, in the Godhead, there are THREE holy influences, each with it's own realm of practice, yet part of a whole in purpose. GOD the Father, Jesus Christ THE SON (And our savior, advocate, defense counsel if you will) and the HOLY SPIRIT, (Wise counselor, OUR inner voice is HIS, not ours, You KNOW it when you feel the presence). However, there is only ONE God, and he does not have multiple personalities. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Grunt said:

Now I'm REALLY confused.  I accept that the Godhead is three distinct beings, but I have difficulty (and have never heard) anything about all three being God.  There is one God.  His Son, Jesus Christ, is just that:  His Son.  I don't particularly have a "puzzle fit" for the Holy Spirit piece, but I don't understand how the Holy Spirit is God as well.

You are correct in the distinction of the three beings.  But there is some history you are missing.

In the Garden of Eden, He who was called "God" and "the LORD God" was indeed the Father.  But He warned Adam that in the day that he should eat of the fruit that he would die.  This was true on two levels.

1) Within that one Godly day (1000 years) Adam did die a physical death.
2) At that time of transgression, Adam (and all mankind) lost the ability to socialize (for lack of a better term) with the Father.  So, he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden AND he was never allowed to associate with the Father again in this life.

Ever since he was cast out, He who was called "God" who actually conversed face-to-face with man was the Son.  He is the Great Mediator.  He was "The Word" of His Power.  Only a few instances that we know of has the Father actually spoken with man since the Garden.

1. When Christ was baptized (Matt 3:17), that was the voice of the Father who said,"This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2. The Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:5; Luke 9:35; Mark 9:7) "This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.  Hear ye Him.
3. Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son (JSH 1:17)"This is my Beloved Son.  Hear Him."

You can tell exactly the limits of the Father's personal contact with mortals since the Garden.

Only one other time I recall where the Father was seen without having any words recorded.  When Stephen was being stoned (Acts 7:56).

All other times it was the Son.

You are right in having difficulty with the "puzzle fit" for the Holy Ghost.  The fact is that we actually have difficulty defining exactly what a "spirit" is to begin with.  So, how can we describe the "Holy Spirit"?  But here's something that may help.

Quote

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

D&C 130:22

The special role He has of "dwelling in us" requires that He be a spirit to perform that function.  Thus, when we feel that we are "hearing" God's voice in our hearts and minds and feel His presence, it is usually the Holy Ghost doing this.  That's His role as "God."

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, Alex said:

If you believe this, how do you reconcile Christ talking to the father?

The en-fleshment of God the Son combined with the 3 distinct persons make it quite possible for the Son (who submitted to becoming 'a little lower than the angels') to address his Father in prayer.

[Alex]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

The en-fleshment of God the Son combined with the 3 distinct persons make it quite possible for the Son (who submitted to becoming 'a little lower than the angels') to address his Father in prayer.

yes, as long as they are 3 distinct persons it makes sense. It's when the believer says they are one being that it doesn't make sense.

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Alex said:

yes, as long as they are 3 distinct persons it makes sense. It's when the believer says they are one being that it doesn't make sense.

Remember that we do not believe the Father is flesh, nor the Spirit, and that prior to the incarnation, neither was Jesus. So, while we would argue they are one--and it's more than a union of purpose--that union is not flesh.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

“The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another”

...is the support for my point. 

The Trinity is sometimes better explained in the negative, as in, what God is not. Ie, God is not three Gods, but one, etc.

Anyway, I should stop typing because my fingers didn’t type what my head was thinking.

To clarify, Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons who share one divine substance. One being, not three beings. 

This has been a great thread really, as so often LDS threads on the Trinity devolve into Trinity bashing.  This one is truly refreshing. But since this is the LDS discussion forum and I get scolded for discussing non-LDS subjects in this forum, I’ll see y’all on some other thread.

Would it be accurate to compare the Catholic view of the trinity, as being like three separate branches of the same plant?

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Would it be accurate to compare the Catholic view of the trinity, as being like three separate branches of the same plant?

St. Patrick is said to have used a three leaf clover as an analogy. The problem with all analogies about the Trinity, is that they all fail in some way. A three leaf clover is a pretty good one though.