The trinity = the family

[e v e]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Announcing one's credentials in order to establish or bolster an argument is sometimes legitimate. "I am a physician in California." "I practice criminal law in Texas." "I was a professor of botany at Georgetown." Assuming the people making these assertions are telling the truth, such credentials may in fact establish that one's opinions should be considered perhaps more seriously than those of other less-qualified people.

But announcing one's credentials in lieu of providing actual argumentation to bolster one's points is, as NT stated, a red flag. This red flag triples in size, waves violently, and adds a blaring horn when the credentials given are along the line of, "I know what I'm talking about because I used to be a professor at a big-time school that I'm not going to name because I'm trying to protect my privacy." Literally no one believes that, and it greatly weakens both your present argument and your credibility going forward.

I am only talking about that because I was challenged as to my understanding of a theological term. And then many posts followed, asking me for credentials.

[Vort]

Just now, e v e said:

I am only talking about that because I was challenged as to my understanding of a theological term.

No, e v e. You were not challenged as to your understanding of a theological term. You were challenged as to your usage of a theological term. Vastly different.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, e v e said:

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm just wondering, on the scale of this guy, to Dr. Daniel Peterson who teaches at BYU, where you fall on the scale?

I don't know who Peterson is.

Dr. Daniel Peterson is a professor at BYU.  Sometimes he mentions in discussions online, that he has this or that degree or experience, and therefore knows what he's talking about.  When asked, he provides his name, his school, details on the credentials he's introduced.  You can find his bio here:

https://humanities.byu.edu/person/daniel-c-peterson/

 

So hopefully you can understand, when you say something like this:

"I think I know the word trinity, since I taught theology and philosophy at university for many years."

But you are unwilling to give anything beyond vague non-answers when asked about your credentials, many reasonable people are going to view your claim with skepticism.  If you're here to persuade anyone about anything, you're not doing yourself any favors.

 

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Actually, what I might call "Trojan-horsing" is exceedingly common, especially among the sociopolitical left. Exceedingly. Words get redefined constantly, making effective communication impossible—WHICH IS THE POINT. "Marriage" doesn't mean marriage. "Racism" doesn't mean racism. "Love" doesn't mean love. "Sex" doesn't even mean sex. People use different definitions for words all the time, for evil intent. Not that e-v-e is doing so, but it is commonly done in our society.

Yeap  I know that part...  Its how they Convert this Conservative White Male, in to a Racist, Fascist, Sexist, Rapist... No matter how much I protest that those terms are not applicable.  Those that demand their definition are the only correct ones are not people that I find I can really have any kind of discussion with.  This thread is just another example of that mentality.

 

[prisonchaplain]

20 hours ago, e v e said:

Even if I don't phrase perfect yet :), the main thing of the op is, that the trinity includes and is His House, His family, and all His sons and daughters. What do you think of that view of the trinity?

The difficulty--and we discuss this often here--is that we trinitarians insist that God is one is an essential way. The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised. I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The difficulty--and we discuss this often here--is that we trinitarians insist that God is one is an essential way. The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised. I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.

Calling it a family opens a different set of issues for the LDS... Namely..  You have Father and Son... so why not Mother and Daughter as well?  If you followed any discussion on Heavenly Mother our reluctance to engage beyond what is clearly given in scriptures and modern revelation should be clear

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.

Not sure that anyone's shy about embracing a familial but unfamiliar description of God. Seems to me more like people are hesitant to embrace a redefinition of "trinity". I mean, I don't believe in the Islamic Shahada, but I'm still going to object to someone saying, "The Shahada is actually a man and a woman with their children." No, it's not, and it's not a matter of what I believe about families or about Islam. It's a matter of what the term "shahada" means. Same thing here, I think.

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The difficulty--and we discuss this often here--is that we trinitarians insist that God is one is an essential way. The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised. I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.

The Godhead relationship is not of family - as in parents, children, siblings - but as a Presidency, e.g. Bishop and his 2 counselors.  Although, we all are organized into eternal families including the Father and his Son, this familial relationship is not the direct organization of the 3 persons in the Godhead.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Not sure that anyone's shy about embracing a familial but unfamiliar description of God. Seems to me more like people are hesitant to embrace a redefinition of "trinity".

I was willing to interpret e v e's description as referring broadly to the nature of God, rather than specifically to a revamped understanding of Trinity. I appreciate your take though. It is too easy--and wrong--to redefine the understandings of others--especially in 'debates--and especially to setup strawmen.

[brotherofJared]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now, as a poster, I'm interested in why people think they can just make up definitions for words.  When someone claims to do that, I'm interested in talking with them about it.  They don't have to if they don't want to.

That's the eminent base of modern Christian beliefs. For example. the word Elohim doesn't mean gods, it means judges and no matter how you show from the content that it could not possibly mean judges, they still hold to their definitions (and then you get one modern Christian who will come along and say, oh, it really does mean gods and in the face of his own admission, he still insists that they are "no gods".

I find that people, especially when they are translating from another language, tend to apply whatever meaning they feel will support their belief system regardless of the word(s) used in other translations.

[brotherofJared]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

 

5 pages into this thread, and I figure NeedleinA basically conveyed the response/opinion of just about every single Christian, regardless of sect, or historical timeframe, who has lived, or is currently living, or (I'm guessing) will ever live.  I certainly haven't been presented with any notion or argument that has influenced my understanding of the word, the way people have defined it, or the way people should define it.

 

Well, NeedleinA is not talking for all of us. I can see there is a valid point in E v e's statement. We certainly understand Christ to be the literal Son of God; Father and Son. Does that not equal family? Who's child is the Holy Ghost? Is the Holy Ghost the son or daughter of someone?

If we go by the strictest view of LDS doctrine, none of us were created. We were organized. Organized into what? Well, that part, we don't know, but I suspect it was organized into families. God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed. If that is true, then how can God the Son be the literal Son of God? 

IMO, The trinity is family as are we.

[NeedleinA]

23 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed.

Always existed as what?

[brotherofJared]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

My response was very related to your question.  You equated trinity to family.  I said that's not correct.  Very related.

Of course, I interpreted the word trinity exactly by its meaning when referring to God.  It might be that you didn't know that the word trinity has a specific meaning.  You seem to understand that Godhead has a specific meaning that does not match what you're trying to define God as which is why you didn't want to use it.  So, if the misunderstanding was that you didn't know that the word trinity when referring to God means The Holy Trinity, then okay, I understand where the miscommunication started.  You can use the word trinity however you wish, just don't expect other people to understand you.

In any case, your interpretation of God, Jesus, Holy Ghost as having a parent-child relationship among the 3 of them is still not something that is held by any Christian sect due to the Holy Ghost not being a parent of Jesus.

I don't know why they wouldn't. I was under the impression that God the Father was a Father and God the Son was a Son. That equal family, doesn't it?

[brotherofJared]

Just now, NeedleinA said:

Always existed as what?

What do you think they always existed as? What does that have to do with my question? Don't you believe they have always existed?

[e v e]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The difficulty--and we discuss this often here--is that we trinitarians insist that God is one is an essential way. The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised. I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.

monotheism is not the issue in reality. in reality two realms are at war and have been for a long time. One realm is God’s. The other is not.

Ive no problem that He is one God and that His male and female attributes (Christ and Miss, who are real and gorgeous beings) personify as She our comforter and He the son, Yet, are Him. Having the same nature. Yet are completely unique persons who are His Son and His feminine counterpart. 

I also have no problem admitting deities exist of both realms a) those God said not to follow and who battle to crush Gods souls and then b) God’s own 144k who are /will be elohim, just as Adam is elohim per Genesis 1.

That is what the new body is about - restoring the stolen birthright belonging to His sons. Not creatures. Sons. Man only became a lower creature, descending to the mortal, after the fall. 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by e v e

[NeedleinA]

1 minute ago, brotherofJared said:

What do you think they always existed as? What does that have to do with my question? Don't you believe they have always existed?

You made the statement that :

28 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed.

I simply asked for clarification to your statement. Are you not able to provide clarification?

 

[brotherofJared]

7 hours ago, e v e said:

Actually I was utterly surprised that the mainstream christian view is the LDS one, at least enough to defend it so vociferously here. I did not know. 

It's not the same view. The trinity is a word that describes three members of the Godhead. We can all agree on that. Your definition is exactly in line with that definition. You're view, as I understand it also has three members in the Godhead, you just believe that one of them is female. You are not alone in that understanding. I have to say, I agree with you, there are a lot of nitpickers around here. In addition, I'm utterly shocked that no one here, that I've seen so far, can see the familial relationship in the Godhead. I have to wonder who the people on this board think we are. Maybe they think that God really isn't our Father in Heaven or maybe they don't see that as a Family relationship.

I'm stumped.

[brotherofJared]

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

You made the statement that :

I simply asked for clarification to your statement. Are you not able to provide clarification?

 

And I asked for clarification because, frankly, your question makes no sense to me. Either they have always existed or they haven't. Do you believe they haven't always existed? My statements don't need clarification. But I'll answer. I DON'T KNOW what they existed as forever. I just know they have existed forever. There was no time when they didn't exist. 

Does that help?

[e v e]

16 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

It's not the same view. The trinity is a word that describes three members of the Godhead. We can all agree on that. Your definition is exactly in line with that definition. You're view, as I understand it also has three members in the Godhead, you just believe that one of them is female. You are not alone in that understanding. I have to say, I agree with you, there are a lot of nitpickers around here. In addition, I'm utterly shocked that no one here, that I've seen so far, can see the familial relationship in the Godhead. I have to wonder who the people on this board think we are. Maybe they think that God really isn't our Father in Heaven or maybe they don't see that as a Family relationship.

I'm stumped.

Yes... true. 

 

I do believe that while God (He, she and the son) share the same nature, they are unique beings because otherwise there could be no relationship. They are a family. It would be a selfish view of God if his son was not unique and himself and God was alone. God has a relationship with His son and His wife. He will not be alone or without them. And by extension, He has a relationship with all of His sons and daughters. 

We are a family. Why go to all trouble to have families if all this is simply shed in heaven. 

Each 144k represents a male and his girl, she being his core and his love. In the same Image of Christ and Miss.. love. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by e v e

[NeedleinA]

47 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed. If that is true, then how can God the Son be the literal Son of God?

Are we literal sons and daughters of God?
Have 'you' always existed?

[brotherofJared]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

But it does answer the putative question you asked in the OP.

He did answer it and I believe E v e asked why he disagreed. Just because it's the commonly accepted belief doesn't make it true and the commonly accepted answer, as far as I know, isn't the LDS view. I was under the impression we did understand that there is a familial relationship between the members of the trinty.

 

 

 

2

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

8 hours ago, Vort said:

e v e, I get the feeling that your question was a springboard for exposition. I suspect what you really wanted to do was to say, "Hey, folks! Listen up! I have an idea that makes a lot of sense to me, and I want to share it with you. I think that trinity = family!" Then maybe you wanted to go into some explanation of why you believed this.

If this was what you wanted, you might have been better served just making the thread's OP like that instead of asking a question that you really didn't care to have answered. Not a criticism, just a thought.

Or maybe she just wanted to see where it would go. I guess we'll never know.

[brotherofJared]

8 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Are we literal sons and daughters of God?
Have 'you' always existed?

First question, I don't know. Literal as in procreated? No. I don't think so. Literal as in He, The Father, is directly responsible for our presence on the earth in our mortal state, yes. But as far as I know, we have no doctrine on that subject nor do we have an explanation as to how that occurred. We believe He, God the Father, is the father of our spirits. I accept that and I believe the relationship to be familial.

Second question, Yes. We are co-eternal with the Father and the Son. I believe that is doctrinal.

[brotherofJared]

8 hours ago, e v e said:

Oedipus is correct in that the actual islam as a religion based up on earlier forms, and not even in this world. THe hieroglyphs describe the same 'circling around the kabba stone.' However, I would not know if oedipus even knows that, or if in fact he is simply jumbled up. Don't know him. However, he is incorrect in that it's currently in a very dilute form, and disconnected from the reference I just made, re: hieroglyphs.  I don't know who Peterson is. I taught at a quasi Ivy league university, with a great football team on the east coast, subjects being philosophy ancient to modern and Medieval theology. 

 

Yes. It all depends on perspective. Mormons believe their religion originated with Adam and Eve making it the oldest religion in the world, but no one else believes that. They all believe it's only 200 years old.

[NeedleinA]

So when you asked your question:

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed. If that is true, then how can God the Son be the literal Son of God?

Which definition of literal are you inquiring about?

8 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

1. Literal as in procreated?
2. Literal as in He, The Father, is directly responsible for our presence on the earth in our mortal state

[brotherofJared]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised.

I would agree. That is a problem for traditional Trinitarians. But it poses no problem for Latter-day saints which is why I'm stumped at the opposition offered here.