LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[Albion]

I'm sorry but what I see here is call circular reasoning. The assumptions is there is one God -> but there are three Gods-> but there is only one God so of course the three Gods are one God which is made up of three Gods.

And not one of you can explain what the substance is!

Substance simply means "What he/it consists of (as opposed to what it merely seems or appears to be)." And as for what you wrote above, that's completely incorrect and, what's worse it's been explained several times already, plain as can be done. No one here who is not a Mormon has come close to saying that "there are three Gods." To be a Trinitarian is automatically to reject such a notion.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Substance simply means "What he/it consists of (as opposed to what it merely seems or appears to be)." And as for what you wrote above, that's completely incorrect and, what's worse it's been explained several times already, plain as can be done.

I'm sorry but no Trinitarian here (excepting the possibility NYC) has remotely tried to explain WHAT this substance is or given a Bible verse that even talks about it. You're causing me to think "plain as can be done" = "not explained at all".

 

[Albion]

That's not true, but if you keep generating terms you've invented like "Super-meta-physical-whatever" and "Co-substanition", and then say you don't understand them, I'm sure you can claim that the other side hasn't answered to your satisfaction. So, here's an idea. We'll just record you as not understanding the Trinity or what that's all about, and go ahead with the discussion.

 

[NYCGuy]

My description of "super-meta-physical substance" is vague because that vagueness is the most I can get out of any Trinitarian believer (and even getting that far takes a lot of patience and bush beating). In my experience, Trinitarians are really fond of claiming this, and condemning you if you don't claim to believe it too, but can't actually tell you WHAT it is they actually believe.

In all of my years as a believing Trinitarian, around Trinitarians, participating on various Christian forums, I've never heard anyone use those phrases or imply them. Please provide an example.

Also, I've explained what I believe, and provided two links that explain what we believe. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites on what we believe in relation to the Trinity.

So, do you hold the results of the Ecumenical Councils on par of authority with the Bible?

Yes.

I am aware of this. That being said, I've heard many Trinitarian believers (even pastors) errantly promote modalism, which adds to the confusion.

And they would be incorrect for doing so.

Here (specifically this last paragraph) it sounds like your points to a relationship, not something ontological. Is that correct?
I am also starting to get lost in the part your quoting above.

Both. The Trinity is comprised of two ideas, to put it simply: "who" and "what". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "three" in regards to "who", and are "one" in relation to "what". When we understand this, we see that the Trinity is not a contradiction as is often stated, because the oneness and threeness of the Trinity are talking about two different concepts.

In regards to the idea of "relationship", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and they eternally exist as a relationship.

You lost me.

Ok. I don't think what I posted in that paragraph is complicated. Essentially, we don't believe there are degrees of Godhood or that someone can be more or less God than another. The fulness of Godhood dwelled in Jesus.

I have seem both of these before and find them unhelpful.

You're entitled to your opinion. I especially found the first article outstanding, as it explains what we believe as Trinitarians, what we believe on what "substance" (or essence, or nature, or being, all used interchangeably) is, what "person" is, Biblical bases, etc.

Let me try a simple question: if I was to invite God-- all of God-- to dinner, how many chairs do I need? (even if the person is a being of spirit and doesn't actually need a chair, I'll set one anyways).

Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

Another article that I find great is this one:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp

It is by Frank Sheed, a Catholic, who wrote the popular book "Theology and Sanity". It includes chapters on the Trinity that explain it so greatly that many buy the book just for that. I believe part or all of it (it's been awhile since I read the book) is reproduced in that link.

 

[NYCGuy]

That's not true, but if you keep generating terms you've invented like "Super-meta-physical-whatever" and "Co-substanition", and then say you don't understand them, I'm sure you can claim that the other side hasn't answered to your satisfaction. So, here's an idea. We'll just record you as not understanding the Trinity or what that's all about, and go ahead with the discussion.

I agree. We have explained what we believe extensively, and I still haven't seen what Mormons think "substance" is referring to, nor what is meant by the phrases I've never seen in my life before.

 

[fatboys]

In all of my years as a believing Trinitarian, around Trinitarians, participating on various Christian forums, I've never heard anyone use those phrases or imply them. Please provide an example.

Also, I've explained what I believe, and provided two links that explain what we believe. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites on what we believe in relation to the Trinity.



Yes.



And they would be incorrect for doing so.



Both. The Trinity is comprised of two ideas, to put it simply: "who" and "what". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "three" in regards to "who", and are "one" in relation to "what". When we understand this, we see that the Trinity is not a contradiction as is often stated, because the oneness and threeness of the Trinity are talking about two different concepts.

In regards to the idea of "relationship", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and they eternally exist as a relationship.



Ok. I don't think what I posted in that paragraph is complicated. Essentially, we don't believe there are degrees of Godhood or that someone can be more or less God than another. The fulness of Godhood dwelled in Jesus.



You're entitled to your opinion. I especially found the first article outstanding, as it explains what we believe as Trinitarians, what we believe on what "substance" (or essence, or nature, or being, all used interchangeably) is, what "person" is, Biblical bases, etc.



Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

Another article that I find great is this one:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp

It is by Frank Sheed, a Catholic, who wrote the popular book "Theology and Sanity". It includes chapters on the Trinity that explain it so greatly that many buy the book just for that. I believe part or all of it (it's been awhile since I read the book) is reproduced in that link.

Before God created was he less than after he created?

 

[NYCGuy]

Before God created was he less than after he created?

No.

 

[fatboys]

No.

You say that God doesn't change. I believe that as well but before God created there was nothing but God. Now the universe is filled with billions of galaxies and worlds. How did God stay the same? He certainly has more.

 

[NYCGuy]

You say that God doesn't change. I believe that as well but before God created there was nothing but God. Now the universe is filled with billions of galaxies and worlds. How did God stay the same? He certainly has more.

So do you or don't you believe that God doesn't change? You said that's what I believe, then said you believe that as well, now you're asking how He stays the same...

 

[Jane_Doe]

In all of my years as a believing Trinitarian, around Trinitarians, participating on various Christian forums, I've never heard anyone use those phrases or imply them. Please provide an example.

These are just my words (you asked me to explain things, I used my words). It appears to me that the Trinitarians belief is the Father/Son/Spirit are all made up of this special metaphysical stuff and that's what makes them somehow one being. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I've explained what I believe, and provided two links that explain what we believe. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites on what we believe in relation to the Trinity.

Both. The Trinity is comprised of two ideas, to put it simply: "who" and "what". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "three" in regards to "who", and are "one" in relation to "what". When we understand this, we see that the Trinity is not a contradiction as is often stated, because the oneness and threeness of the Trinity are talking about two different concepts.

In regards to the idea of "relationship", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and they eternally exist as a relationship.

Ok. I don't think what I posted in that paragraph is complicated. Essentially, we don't believe there are degrees of Godhood or that someone can be more or less God than another. The fulness of Godhood dwelled in Jesus.

You're entitled to your opinion. I especially found the first article outstanding, as it explains what we believe as Trinitarians, what we believe on what "substance" (or essence, or nature, or being, all used interchangeably) is, what "person" is, Biblical bases, etc.

I'm sorry, but I am totally lost here.

Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

Ok. That part I got. Now, can you tell me how these three chairs makes them ONE God, explain in two sentences or less?


(I'm not trying to be obstinate here: I do honestly find this to be highly confusing and illogical).

 

[Jane_Doe]

I agree. We have explained what we believe extensively, and I still haven't seen what Mormons think "substance" is referring to, nor what is meant by the phrases I've never seen in my life before.

"Substance" isn't a Mormon word to describe God- it's a trinitarian, and makes zero sense to Mormons, hence why we keep asking for you to explain it. It is illogical for you to ask us to explain your beliefs to you.

 

[Peter1000]

I'm interested in your thoughts on what it is referring to.



Actually, we do know what "substance" is referring to. See my recent post, as well as the first link I provided in that post.


Well, they are all of the same substance (see my recent post), so that wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.



What do you mean by "separated"? Also, we believe that they are al of the same substance, and it has eternally been so, so this question wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.



No, this is an incorrect understanding of the Trinity. Foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity is that the three Persons are distinct, and are therefore not each other. Therefore, there is distinction/relation in the Trinity, which would make your question above not relevant to the Trinity. When God the Son was on the earth, it was God the Son, not God the Father, who Incarnated. This is basic Trinity doctrine. Your above question/statement tends towards the heresy of modalism.

NYCGuy says:
I'm interested in your thoughts on what it is referring to.

There are only 3 forms of "substance" that I am aware of.
1) spirit. To a Mormon, spirit it not immaterial. It is matter and has mass, but it is refined matter. A good example of spirit substance, is the HS. The HS is in a spirit, and can go right through a persons flesh body and communicate with the persons own spirit. That is what we refer to as becoming one with the Godhead. We find this in scripture at the baptism of Jesus. The HS fell upon Jesus, meaning the HS went right through Jesus's flesh body and they became one. So spirit has real mass and has real substance, not just an immaterial essence or breeze.

2) mortal flesh(MF). Flesh is a substance also. It has much greater mass than does spirit. It obviously cannot go through other matter like walls and other mortal men.

3) immortal/resurrected flesh(IF). This type of flesh has real substance too. The difference between IF and MF is the IF has many marvelous qualities that the MF does not have. For instance, when Jesus was resurrected with a IF flesh body, he suddenly appeared to his disciples in a closed room, IOW he was able to come through the walls and appeared to them. They thought he was a spirit, but he proved to them that his substance was flesh and bone. Also at the ascension, his IF body rose into the air and out of sight. So the IF is a real substance, but is far more advanced than that of the MF substance.

So 3 kinds of substance, spirit, mortal flesh, and immortal/resurrected flesh. So to Mormons "substance" is real, not just some kind of essence (which to me is a cop out word, when religous doctors don't know how to describe the substance) or nature (nature does not describe what substance is either)

NYCGuy says:
What do you mean by "separated"? Also, we believe that they are all of the same substance, and it has eternally been so, so this question wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

I mean, is there daylight between them. So if you really believe that they are all of the same substance and it has been eternally so, then they have never been separated from each other. IOW if you were to see all 3 of them standing in front of you, you would only see 1 individual, no daylight between them.
Mormons believe there is daylight between them, IOW God the Father has His own substance, separate and distinct from Jesus's substance, and the HS's substance is separate and distinct from the Father and the Son. If you saw the 3 standing in front of you, you would see 3 individuals with daylight between each of them.

NYCGuy says:
Well, they are all of the same substance (see my recent post), so that wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

It would be relevant if there is an event in the bible that proves they are not all of the same substance, would it not?

NYCGuy says:
When God the Son was on the earth, it was God the Son, not God the Father, who Incarnated. This is basic Trinity doctrine. Your above question/statement tends towards the heresy of modalism.

Your right, but your statement that "they are of the same substance that cannot be divided", eliminates the idea that God the Father could stay in the heavens, while His Son Jesus came to earth. If God the Father stayed in heaven and His Son Jesus came to earth, the substance would be divided. There would be daylight between them. And if that's the case, we would be talking Mormonism 101, and the Trinity doctrine seems to collapse.

 

[NYCGuy]

These are just my words (you asked me to explain things, I used my words). It appears to me that the Trinitarians belief is the Father/Son/Spirit are all made up of this special metaphysical stuff and that's what makes them somehow one being. It doesn't make any sense to me.

As a Trinitarian, I can tell you that I don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "made up of this special metaphysical stuff", and I've never seen the doctrine described as such. Perhaps you can point to a reference that makes that claim, or implies it, so I can better understand.

I'm sorry, but I am totally lost here.

What exactly is confusing. I don't see anything complex in what I said. Quite simply, the way in which the Trinity is "three" is different from the way in which it is "one". They are two different ideas.

Ok. That part I got. Now, can you tell me how these three chairs makes them ONE God, explain in two sentences or less?

They are one God because they are all of the same nature (nature also used interchangeably with essence, being, substance).

(I'm not trying to be obstinate here: I do honestly find this to be highly confusing and illogical).

I personally don't see anything highly confusing nor illogical with it, if one takes the time to actually read and understand (not saying you're not doing that) what is being said, and put aside their preconceived notions.

 

[NYCGuy]

"Substance" isn't a Mormon word to describe God- it's a trinitarian, and makes zero sense to Mormons, hence why we keep asking for you to explain it. It is illogical for you to ask us to explain your beliefs to you.

I am asking you to explain your understanding of what you're talking about. If you say something is not Biblical, or is illogical, I will ask why it is so, as well as your understanding of the problematic word, because if your understanding of that word is incorrect (as it seems to be the case for at least one or two Mormon posters in this thread), then we are not talking about the same thing, and this discussion is pointless.

Nothing illogical at all about that.

 

[Jane_Doe]

As a Trinitarian, I can tell you that I don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "made up of this special metaphysical stuff", and I've never seen the doctrine described as such. Perhaps you can point to a reference that makes that claim, or implies it, so I can better understand.

"made up of this special metaphysical stuff" broken down--
made up of = aka consisting of
special = it's special (pretty straight forward)
metaphysical = outside of the realm of standard physics we know here.
stuff = generic place holder noun.

They are one God because they are all of the same nature (nature also used interchangeably with essence, being, substance).

Could you elaborate on this please? (The 1-ness part, I got the 3-part)

 

[NYCGuy]

NYCGuy says:
I'm interested in your thoughts on what it is referring to.

There are only 3 forms of "substance" that I am aware of.
1) spirit. To a Mormon, spirit it not immaterial. It is matter and has mass, but it is refined matter. A good example of spirit substance, is the HS. The HS is in a spirit, and can go right through a persons flesh body and communicate with the persons own spirit. That is what we refer to as becoming one with the Godhead. We find this in scripture at the baptism of Jesus. The HS fell upon Jesus, meaning the HS went right through Jesus's flesh body and they became one. So spirit has real mass and has real substance, not just an immaterial essence or breeze.

2) mortal flesh(MF). Flesh is a substance also. It has much greater mass than does spirit. It obviously cannot go through other matter like walls and other mortal men.

3) immortal/resurrected flesh(IF). This type of flesh has real substance too. The difference between IF and MF is the IF has many marvelous qualities that the MF does not have. For instance, when Jesus was resurrected with a IF flesh body, he suddenly appeared to his disciples in a closed room, IOW he was able to come through the walls and appeared to them. They thought he was a spirit, but he proved to them that his substance was flesh and bone. Also at the ascension, his IF body rose into the air and out of sight. So the IF is a real substance, but is far more advanced than that of the MF substance.

So 3 kinds of substance, spirit, mortal flesh, and immortal/resurrected flesh. So to Mormons "substance" is real, not just some kind of essence (which to me is a cop out word, when religous doctors don't know how to describe the substance) or nature (nature does not describe what substance is either)

Thanks for what you think. "Essence" is not used to describe the substance, nor is "nature". As I said repeatedly, These words (substance, essence, nature, being) are used interchangeably. Ultimately it is stating what something is. Two links that I have already provided go into depth in describing what is being discussed when we talk about these words. Please read them.

NYCGuy says:
What do you mean by "separated"? Also, we believe that they are all of the same substance, and it has eternally been so, so this question wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

I mean, is there daylight between them. So if you really believe that they are all of the same substance and it has been eternally so, then they have never been separated from each other. IOW if you were to see all 3 of them standing in front of you, you would only see 1 individual, no daylight between them.
Mormons believe there is daylight between them, IOW God the Father has His own substance, separate and distinct from Jesus's substance, and the HS's substance is separate and distinct from the Father and the Son. If you saw the 3 standing in front of you, you would see 3 individuals with daylight between each of them.

1) You're using the word "substance" differently than how it is used by Trinitarians.
2) We don't believe there would only be one individual, or person, because we believe there are three distinct Persons.
3) Not sure you're using "separated" appropriately as a Trinitarian would use it.

NYCGuy says:
Well, they are all of the same substance (see my recent post), so that wouldn't be relevant to the Trinity doctrine.

It would be relevant if there is an event in the bible that proves they are not all of the same substance, would it not?

Which event would that be? Again, you aren't using the word "substance" as a Trinitarian would use it, therefore again, it wouldn't be relevant.

NYCGuy says:
When God the Son was on the earth, it was God the Son, not God the Father, who Incarnated. This is basic Trinity doctrine. Your above question/statement tends towards the heresy of modalism.

Your right, but your statement that "they are of the same substance that cannot be divided", eliminates the idea that God the Father could stay in the heavens, while His Son Jesus came to earth. If God the Father stayed in heaven and His Son Jesus came to earth, the substance would be divided. There would be daylight between them. And if that's the case, we would be talking Mormonism 101, and the Trinity doctrine seems to collapse.

No it doesn't. Again, you have a much different usage of the word "substance" from how Trinitarians use it within the Trinity doctrine. The Father being in Heaven and the Son incarnating does not divide the substance/nature, at least as defined by Trinitarians.

Please read the links provided, they discuss exactly what we believe on this matter, in great detail.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

 

[NYCGuy]

This will be my last post on this, as it is way off the topic of this thread, and I believe I've provided a lot of what I think on the matter, as well as detailed links on the topic. A different thread can be started to discuss the Trinity.

"made up of this special metaphysical stuff" broken down--
made up of = aka consisting of
special = it's special (pretty straight forward)
metaphysical = outside of the realm of standard physics we know here.
stuff = generic place holder noun.

Right, I don't necessarily believe that.

Could you elaborate on this please? (The 1-ness part, I got the 3-part)

Oneness refers to the nature. "What" God is.
Threeness refers to the Persons. "Who" God is.
The Trinity is not a contradiction because the way that God is one is different than the way God is three. It isn't three natures and one nature. It isn't three Persons and one Person. It is one nature, three Persons.

Finally, I will close with an excerpt from one of the links I provided. Again, this is my last post on this matter of the Trinity, as it is completely off topic, my fault.

"Returning to the point at which this digression started: we must not say three separate persons, but three distinct persons, because although they are distinct - that is to say, no one of them is either of the others - yet they cannot be separated, for each is what he is by the total possession of the one same nature: apart from that one same nature, no one of the three persons could exist at all. And we must not use any phrase which suggests that the three persons share the Divine Nature. For we have seen that in the Infinite there is utter simplicity, there are no parts, therefore no possibility of sharing. The infinite Divine Nature can be possessed only in its totality. In the words of the Fourth Council of the Lateran, "There are three persons indeed, but one utterly simple substance, essence, or nature."

Summarizing thus far, we may state the doctrine in this way: the Father possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as His Own. Thus, since the nature of any being decides what the being is, each person is God, wholly and therefore equally with the others. Further, the nature decides what the person can do: therefore, each of the three persons who thus totally possess the Divine Nature can do all the things that go with being God.

To complete this first stage of our inquiry, let us return to the question which, in our model dialogue above, produced so much incoherence from the believer - if each of the three persons is wholly God, why not three Gods? The reason why we cannot say three Gods becomes clear if we consider what is meant by the parallel phrase, "three men". That would mean three distinct persons, each possessing a human nature. But note that, although their natures would be similar, each would have his own. The first man could not think with the second man's intellect, but only with his own; the second man could not love with the third's will, but only with his own. The phrase "three men" would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate human nature, his own separate equipment as man; the phrase "three gods" would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate Divine Nature, his own separate equipment as God. But in the Blessed Trinity, that is not so. The three Persons are God, not by the possession of equal and similar natures, but by the possession of one single nature; they do in fact, what our three men could not do, know with the same intellect and love with the same will. They are three Persons, but they are not three Gods; they are One God."

 

[Jane_Doe]

This will be my last post on this, as it is way off the topic of this thread, and I believe I've provided a lot of what I think on the matter, as well as detailed links on the topic. A different thread can be started to discuss the Trinity.

I would actually like to continue this discussion- I would like to understand the Trinitarian perspective better (even if I believe it's false) and you have a decent way of explaining things. If you would like to start a new thread on the subject, that sounds good, but you'll have to do it (LDS are forbidden from starting threads here).

Right, I don't necessarily believe that.

Ok, how does your belief different from that?

Oneness refers to the nature. "What" God is.
Threeness refers to the Persons. "Who" God is.
The Trinity is not a contradiction because the way that God is one is different than the way God is three. It isn't three natures and one nature. It isn't three Persons and one Person. It is one nature, three Persons.
.

Ok. Could you provide your definition of "nature"?

for each is what he is by the total possession of the one same nature: apart from that one same nature, no one of the three persons could exist at all. And we must not use any phrase which suggests that the three persons share the Divine Nature. For we have seen that in the Infinite there is utter simplicity, there are no parts, therefore no possibility of sharing. The infinite Divine Nature can be possessed only in its totality. In the words of the Fourth Council of the Lateran, "There are three persons indeed, but one utterly simple substance, essence, or nature."

Summarizing thus far, we may state the doctrine in this way: the Father possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as His Own. Thus, since the nature of any being decides what the being is, each person is God, wholly and therefore equally with the others. Further, the nature decides what the person can do: therefore, each of the three persons who thus totally possess the Divine Nature can do all the things that go with being God."

Again, this makes no sense. I seemingly read one sentence and then have it directly contradicted in the next sentence. I think a definition of "nature" would help greatly.

 

[Peter1000]

NYCGuy, I think what we have here are several people whose main interest is in defending, in anyway possible, the position of their own church on this matter, even to the point of "playing dumb" when explanations are given by us. It's not about participating in an open exchange of ideas concerning the nature of God or of Joseph Smith's rejection of the standard Christian POV.

This is what is quite confusing to Mormons:

Jane_Doe asks:
Let me try a simple question: if I was to invite God-- all of God-- to dinner, how many chairs do I need? (even if the person is a being of spirit and doesn't actually need a chair, I'll set one anyways).

NYCGuy answers:
Trinitarians believe that the one God eternally exists as three distinct Persons. There would be three chairs.

The answer that there would be 3 chairs, means that 3 separate and distinct persons would be coming to dinner. God the Father would be sitting in chair A, Jesus would be sitting in chair B, and the HS is siting in chair C.
To me this would be "dividing the substance", and there would in reality be 3 persons in the room, and the Trinity doctrine would be false, and JS would be exactly right.

I would have expected for NYCGuy to say, only put out 1 chair. Because even though the 3 Persons are distinct, they share the same substance, and that substance cannot be divided. Therefore there are 3 Persons, but only 1 God, so set out 1 chair for that 1 God.

Tell me where I am wrong?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Thanks for what you think. "Essence" is not used to describe the substance, nor is "nature". As I said repeatedly, These words (substance, essence, nature, being) are used interchangeably. Ultimately it is stating what something is

I’m going to pull up the M-W dictionary here:

Substance = "a material of a particular kind"

Essence = "the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is"

Nature = (pulling the relevant definition) “the way that a person or animal behaves : the character or personality of a person or animal”

Being = a living thing.

Is = (redirected to “be”) used to indicate the identity of a person or thing


These are different definitions, they are not interchangeable at all.