Another attempt at describing the Trinity

[rameumptom]

"...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which are/is one God..."-- not an exact quote, but paraphrasing of different scriptures.

i would like to thank rameumpton for saying "But I agree that logic cannot explain the Trinity, which is why it is understood as a mystery." it is a mystery and is an impossible task to put a incomprehensible God into terms so that we can fully understand His nature.

i look at it in this way though. if there is more than one God, wouldn't God have once said in the Bible or book of mormon, "...which Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit are three Gods..."? lds believe that the Father is a God, the Son is a God and the Holy Ghost is a God. so, when you throw that into the comparison of God being like a bishopric or stake presidnecy, it's like saying there are three bishops or three presidents when there really is not.

While I understand the Trinity is viewed as a mystery, that does not necessarily make it exactly correct. John 17:3 tells us that eternal life is to know God and Jesus. If they are a mystery, then there is no way we can ever get to know them, and so eternal life is an impossibility.

The analogy given of the stake presidency doesn't work for the Trinity. While there would be three presidents/persons, they are all of the same substance - which you do not get with a stake presidency (maybe a high council, though). There is no analogy that explains the mystery. The analogies all fall short, usually into a version of modalism, which is considered heresy to true Trinitarians.

The Bible does separate out the Godhead. In John 17, the Lord prays that his disciples may be one even as the Father and Son are one. If we view this from a LDS Godhead point of view, the unity in purpose and relation is understandable and doable- we can actually come to know the Father and the Son to obtain eternal life.

However, to understand this chapter in light of the Trinity, we would have to determine that all Christ's disciples will one day be as the Trinity are: separate persons, but one substance. And such a concept disagrees with the resurrection and teachings in the New Testament (although it does agree with Hinduism and some forms of Gnosticism). Christ's prayer, in light of the Trinity, does not make any sense. According to the creeds, we are not of the same substance as they are, and there is no way we can become as they are, or begin to understand/know them enough to receive eternal life.

Everywhere the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God", it is describing the "Doctrine of Christ." The Doctrine of Christ is that the Godhead are united in one in an extremely close relationship. We must seek and obtain this same level of unity and relationship with the Saints, in order to become like God and Christ. The key to this is 1) Faith in Christ, 2) Repentance, 3) Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins (and other ordinances), 4) Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, 5) Enduring to the end.

These become a process in our lives that as we follow them, we follow in Christ's footsteps until we become one with Christ and the Father and with the saints.

Finally, I always find it amusing how people insist that we find proof of the Godhead in the Bible and Book of Mormon, ignoring the other LDS writings. Was the Book of Mormon okay, but suddenly the other revelations given to Joseph Smith not inspired or acceptable? Doctrine and Covenants 130 tells us that the Godhead are three separate beings. That should be very clear.

But it finds support in the Bible and Book of Mormon: Stephen gazed up into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Either there are two separate beings that Stephen saw, or Stephen didn't really see them. And if he didn't really see them, then God lied to him and the Bible is wrong. I'll let you take your pick on how to read such events, but it can't be logical and illogical at the same time - either Stephen saw two individuals, or he didn't. And if he didn't, then God lied to him. And if God lied to him, then he can't be God, for God cannot lie.

[Flyonthewall]

... lds believe that the Father is a God, the Son is a God and the Holy Ghost is a God. so, when you throw that into the comparison of God being like a bishopric or stake presidnecy, it's like saying there are three bishops or three presidents when there really is not.

I used the Stake Presidency as an attempt to wrap my head around the Trinity, not to compare it with the LDS outlook on the Godhead.

I have heard it said about the Trinity, by those who subscribe to the Trinity, that in order to understand the concept of the Trinity, you must think in the abstract.

LDS find it hard to grasp the concept of the Trinity, because of our notion of the Godhead is "concrete", that is, there is no need for abstract thought to understand it.

I don't claim an understanding of the Trinity, I am still trying to figure it out...I try to figure it out to better understand others, who have that belief.

[JonboySquarepants]

first off, i'll start with why i say "in the bible of book of mormon"; why wouldn't i? lds believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. lds believe the book of mormon to be the word of God. the bible and book of mormon are records of what was taught and believed, right? so why wouldn't all lds doctrines be found in them? i can understand why they wouldn't be in the bible because lds believe it is not fully correct and is full of errors. but the book of mormon is the word of God without question. it is the most correct book. it is what is given to people to read and pray about whether the teachings found in it are correct and of God, and if so, that makes J Smith and the church true. so, did God forget to teach those ancient people that there is more than one God? yes, i think there are verses that teach that the Father and Son are one in purpose. however, i also think there are verses that teach there is only one God. i'm just asking for verses where God teaches the people, both ancient and present, that there is more than one God. or the verses that teach there is an eternal line of Gods past, present, and future, instead of there being just one eternal God.

i think it's pointless for anybody to argue over this whole issue because we read the same verses and get two different interpretations. when i see "one God" i understand that as meaning literally only one God. when you see "one God" you understand that as meaning more than one God but one in purpose. you mention stephen seeing jesus standing on the right hand of God. you understand that as stephen seeing two men, one standing next to the other. when i read "on the right hand of God" i understand that as a position of authority; his relationship towards the Father. I think God is a spirit, and thus stephen did not see two men with bodies, but he saw the glory of God, and jesus on the right hand of that. so, i guess my answer is that stephen didn't see two individuals and neither did God lie.

God in the lds church is a man who is easy to understand. there are so many attempts at "desciribing the trinity" because how are we to put into words an incomprehensible God? all i can really do is try to convey my understanding of the trinity to people who are curious.

[rameumptom]

Not all doctrine or truths are found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible. One of the key teachings in the Book of Mormon is the fact that God continues to reveal His will to his people via prophets. To us, he has revealed new things (actually old things that have been lost) that God desired us to know in these latter days.

BTW, one thing you may not be aware of is that 2/3 of the Gold Plates were sealed up and not translated, which contained a prophecy of the Earth from the beginning until the end. It may be that many of the things you expect to be in the portion of the Book of Mormon we have are in the sealed portion.

Whether they are or aren't, the reality is that God continues to speak through prophets. We do not believe that God has said everything he wishes to say in the Bible and BoM. Why would we want to delimit God in such a way? The idea is the Bible and book of Mormon give us a foundational knowledge of Christ and his gospel. But it isn't everything. God has yet to reveal many things to mankind: how does one resurrect, for example? While many traditional Christians are hedged in by creeds that insist that the Bible and God's word are complete: LDS relish in the thought that God will reveal new things to us.

[JonboySquarepants]

ok. i think i understand where you're coming from. where did you get that 2/3 of the plates were sealed up and not translated? that is something that i either forgot or haven't heard before.

[rameumptom]

The sealed portion is partially referenced in Joseph Smith's History/Testimony. Verse 65 tells of Martin Harris taking some of the characters to Professor Charles Anthon for review. Prof Anthon wanted to see the plates, but was told that a portion of them were sealed and could not be brought to him. He replied that he could not read a sealed book, fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah 29.

[JonboySquarepants]

what did it fulfill?

*adding edit*

"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:"

this verse says the 'book' was delivered unto the 'learned' man and that he couldn't read it because it was sealed. according to JSH, the 'book' was never brought to the 'learned' man, so... how is that the same prophecy?

[Flyonthewall]

A copied portion of the "book" was delivered to a learned man, and when told that some of the book was sealed, the learned man stated "I cannot read a sealed book".

Not much of a stretch here, almost word for word.

[rameumptom]

what did it fulfill?

*adding edit*

"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:"

this verse says the 'book' was delivered unto the 'learned' man and that he couldn't read it because it was sealed. according to JSH, the 'book' was never brought to the 'learned' man, so... how is that the same prophecy?

You've misread the quote. It states, "the WORDS of a book that is sealed." That's very different than the book itself being delivered. And the words of the plates were delivered to a learned man, just as the prophecy tells us.

[JonboySquarepants]

but didn't he read those words? it says he read them and then he changed his mind.

[JonboySquarepants]

"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:"

-----

this will have to go down in the archives as one of those passages we disagree one. :) i read it as saying that the vision of all is what became as the words of a book that is sealed. what does that mean? it means they were put in a deep sleep and had no vision. it says that in the verses before it. so, yeah, he couldn't read it when asked to because he had no vision. but then when the unlearned man was asked to, he couldn't read it either. that's what i got from the passage. it doesn't say that it was shown to an unlearned man and he said "even though i am unlearned, i can read this," no it tells us the unlearned man simply said "i am unlearned." where do you get that he read it? you're just putting that in there. however, in JSH charles anthon was reading the stuff. he said, 'yes, this is a correct translation... these are real characters'. but the sealed portion of the book was never brought to charles anthon. he never had a chance to look at that. he simply was told a portion of the book could not be brought to him(could not be brought to him) because it was sealed and then charles said 'i cannot read it, it is sealed'.

in isaiah they could not read stuff because the vision of all had become as the words of a sealed book. in JSH, charles anthon was reading the stuff, saying it was correct, but was never brought the sealed portion of the book. sounds like two different things to me.