The Trinity & Premortal Existence

[Ran77]

But, at the end of the day, both the Godhead and the Trinity have an aspect that cannot be logically reconciled. For us Trinitarians, it is how God can be three persons, yet on essential being. We can draw analogies, and try to explain how such can work. But ultimately, there must needs be some amount of just accepting.

For LDS, the Godhead is three seperate personages who are only united in purpose. And yet, most LDS, and probably the offical leadership, would like to insist that your faith remains monotheistic. You believe in one God. But how can three personages, totally seperate in essence, be one God? You can try to explain, say you only worship the Father, etc....but ultimately, you accept the explanations, and have no need to resolve further the matter because you already believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that your church holds the restored gospel with apostolic authority.

I resent this sort of implication. And I resent that you make a generalization about the LDS. Each of us are individuals and each of us have come to our beliefs via a different route. I would say all have come here through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but our indivdual thoughts and reasons for accepting it differ.

I think you should reconsider this point. Just because you may not find this logical, doesn't mean that others are merely putting their brains on hold because Joseph Smith said this is so.

And here is mine, I think that people may not have a clear understanding of God and what it means to be God. Money can be your god, but money isn't an entity. The way I see it, God is what you worship. I don't see anything listed that indicates that God has to be a single entity. And for that matter, when I have God described as an amorphous being, that simultaneously can be present as the physical body of Christ, a voice from the heavens, and in the form of a dove as the Holy Spirit, I am a bit confused as how that is really any different than our view that God is one. If God can be one, while being a dove, a voice in heaven, and Christ - then I don't think the other side has much of an argument about us not thinking the matter when we say we worship one God.


(By the way, I enjoy your posts and am glad you participate here - even if this one point bothered me.)

 

[Rescued One]

That has been what I've found among most non-LDS Christians I've personally known, and with they being from a variety of churches. Yet, here, on this forum, at least, I don't see that as the usual perspective, else it seems LDS would not receive so much criticism over our belief that the Father and the Son are not the same being.

Trinitarians are monotheistic and do not believe that Christ is a separate being/essence.

 

[Zechariah]

Trinitarians are monotheistic and do not believe that Christ is a separate being/essence.

Obviously Trinitarians have differing views on this point.

I do not, and I'm pretty sure other Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and Son are the same being.

 

[Zechariah]

I resent this sort of implication. And I resent that you make a generalization about the LDS. Each of us are individuals and each of us have come to our beliefs via a different route. I would say all have come here through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but our indivdual thoughts and reasons for accepting it differ.

I think you should reconsider this point. Just because you may not find this logical, doesn't mean that others are merely putting their brains on hold because Joseph Smith said this is so.

And here is mine, I think that people may not have a clear understanding of God and what it means to be God. Money can be your god, but money isn't an entity. The way I see it, God is what you worship. I don't see anything listed that indicates that God has to be a single entity. And for that matter, when I have God described as an amorphous being, that simultaneously can be present as the physical body of Christ, a voice from the heavens, and in the form of a dove as the Holy Spirit, I am a bit confused as how that is really any different than our view that God is one. If God can be one, while being a dove, a voice in heaven, and Christ - then I don't think the other side has much of an argument about us not thinking the matter when we say we worship one God.


(By the way, I enjoy your posts and am glad you participate here - even if this one point bothered me.)

What I've found so interesting is the difference we tend to see here, and in other forums of this kind where we have so much opposition to our belief in the Godhead, compared to what I've encountered with most of the non-LDS Christians I've personally known.

I would have to say most of them have not had need to further resolve anything either, having views much more closely aligned to LDS belief than not, which they have based on Biblical scripture.

I've given examples here in the past, though mostly what I received in response by non-LDS was that those I used in example must not know, understand, or believe in the teachings of their various faiths. So, go figure.

As for myself, I have had no need to accept the explanations of others on the matter of the Godhead, and it is not because of Joseph Smith that I've not had need to resolve anything further. With the beautiful simplicity of the scriptural record in this matter, I've never found the need.

Here's an example of one of the times I attempted to explained the LDS perspective to someone who claimed LDS were not Christians because, he said, we did not worship the "One True God of the Bible" because we had a different belief regarding the Godhead, than the one he held:

There is only, "One God and Father of all." This is the One True God of the Bible. There is only one Lord and Savior, who is Jesus Christ. He is God's Son. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

God the Father is the First member of the Godhead. Jesus Christ, who is our Savior, is the second member of the Godhead. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. As members of the Godhead, each of these three individuals have the title of God, but God The Father holds preeminence, He being the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, The Great and Almighty God. The Highest, and the Father of all. "The One True God."

It is His work that both the Son and the Holy Ghost do. They speak, act, testify, and bear witness of Him in all things, therefore they do the work of, "The One True God." It is He they serve, not themselves. All teachings and commandments of God ever given to man, come from "The One True God," God the Father, whether He speaks the words Himself, or Christ speaks His words, or the Holy Ghost testifies to them.

All doctrines, whether spoken by the Father's own mouth, or through the mouth of His Son, Jesus Christ, come from the Father, "The One True God." All truths that the Holy Spirit bears witness of to man, come from the mind and will of the Father, "The One True God."

Therefore, even though they are three distinct and separate individuals, they are One God, being One Godhead, as there is only, "One True God," whose work they do. Jesus was sent by Him, and is subordinate to Him, as is the Holy Ghost, who bears witness of God the Father, and of His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Savior of the world. Jesus did not do his own will, but the will of God, his Father, in all things, with his Father, being, "The One True God."

God the Father is our God. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith and our salvation. He suffered, bled, and died for us, so that we, through him, might come unto God the Father and gain eternal life. Therefore, Jesus Christ, whom we praise and adore as Lord, God, and King, is the very center of our faith, and our reverence for what he did for us is beyond measure.

However, we follow Our Savior's example and teachings in our worship of God. We worship the same God that Jesus worshiped, the same God he taught us to worship. We pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to, the same God he taught us to pray to, and we ask all things of God the Father, in Jesus' name, just as Jesus taught, and believe in only, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)

We also echo Paul's teaching, that, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

This does not mean we exclude the other members of the Godhead from worship, because, by the very definition of the word, our worship encompasses them all. But, in the most strict sense of worship, ours is reserved for the God our Lord and Savior taught us to worship, He being God, Our Father.

Hope that helped.​

But, maybe there are those who cannot see the simplicity of that. Or maybe there are those who need God to be more of a mystery. I don't know.

 

[xenic101]

...but ultimately, you accept the explanations, and have no need to resolve further the matter because you already believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that your church holds the restored gospel with apostolic authority.

I resent this sort of implication. And I resent that you make a generalization about the LDS. Each of us are individuals and each of us have come to our beliefs via a different route. I would say all have come here through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but our indivdual thoughts and reasons for accepting it differ.

I think you should reconsider this point. Just because you may not find this logical, doesn't mean that others are merely putting their brains on hold because Joseph Smith said this is so.

After I read Ran's reply, I almost jumped back and changed my answer...but I wondered why I had said "well said" in the first place.

PC was drawing a comparison between how some Christians (including himself) can accept things that don't appear to quite really make sense in their theology with how LDS can accept similar things in ours. I don't think his intent was to say that we just take the Prophets word for granted and never think it out. It's a simplified and general statement he makes to allow LDS some wiggle room, because there just are some answers we don't have. We are exhorted constantly to search out the scriptures and to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost in following the Prophet. We are taught to seek out knowledge, not to rely on someone else spoon feeding us. But PC isn't drawing that detailed an analysis, simply explaining why he accepts "I don't know" as an answer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One of the difficulties I have encountered with various LDS posters here is their testimony that Mormonism makes perfect sense and answers all of the questions that the Great Apostasy (i.e. us non-LDS folks) have failed to answer for them. If this were the case, then many, if not all, of the questions raised on the various threads here would have been simply and directly answered within a matter of a few posts.

That leaves one of two problems. Either Mormonism is adrift in a sea of unanswered, and probably unanswerable, questions or we non-LDS are entirely spiritually blind and cannot grasp any answer provided even if we are smacked on the head with a 2 x 4.

In the present thread we are at a point where it is evident (at least to me) that the LDS actually do not believe that Jesus Christ was just as mortal as the rest of humanity. Rather, He, being a god prior to His mortality, had no ability to exercise any free agency during His mortality because it would contravene his divinity. As with The Great Apostasy, Mormonism believes that Jesus is the one and only Savior of the world - period. When His role as Savior is shifted to becoming the Example by which humanity can gain exaltation even as He earned His exaltation, then He ceases to be the Savior and we become our own saviors and exalters.

 

[xenic101]

we non-LDS are entirely spiritually blind and cannot grasp any answer provided even if we are smacked on the head with a 2 x 4.

Of that whole post, this part comes closest to being correct.

 

[SoftSpoken]

One of the difficulties I have encountered with various LDS posters here is their testimony that Mormonism makes perfect sense and answers all of the questions that the Great Apostasy (i.e. us non-LDS folks) have failed to answer for them.

If you are currently in a state where you know the truth, and are actively denying or altering it, then you are apostate. If this is not the case, then you are not a part of the Great Apostasy. That's another thread though...

That leaves one of two problems. Either Mormonism is adrift in a sea of unanswered, and probably unanswerable, questions or we non-LDS are entirely spiritually blind and cannot grasp any answer provided even if we are smacked on the head with a 2 x 4.

In the present thread we are at a point where it is evident (at least to me) that the LDS actually do not believe that Jesus Christ was just as mortal as the rest of humanity. Rather, He, being a god prior to His mortality, had no ability to exercise any free agency during His mortality because it would contravene his divinity. As with The Great Apostasy, Mormonism believes that Jesus is the one and only Savior of the world - period. When His role as Savior is shifted to becoming the Example by which humanity can gain exaltation even as He earned His exaltation, then He ceases to be the Savior and we become our own saviors and exalters.

Did you miss my earlier post? (see below)

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion [(that Christ did not have agency like mortals)] from LDS doctrines. He certainly was free in every sense that we are free. He was no more compelled against his will to do God's will than am I, or are you. Foreordination, like earthly ordination, does not occur contrary to one's will. Therefore, Christ was not bound by anything or anyone to submit to be our Savior. He was foreordained because he was faithful and willing, both in the premortal realm, and on earth. Do you mind pointing out what leads you to conclude that he was somehow lacking in free will, as compared to the rest of us?

 

[skylark1]

Trinitarians are monotheistic and do not believe that Christ is a separate being/essence.

I agree. Although I suspect that sometimes in an effort to explain the difference betweeen belief in the Trinity and modalism, that at times people have substituted the word "being" for "person" and unintentionally added to other's confusion.


The following is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.​

Clearly, as PrisonChaplain explained earlier in this thread, beleif in the Trinity consists of God in "three persons, yet one essential being."

 

[Ran77]

What I've found so interesting is the difference we tend to see here, and in other forums of this kind where we have so much opposition to our belief in the Godhead, compared to what I've encountered with most of the non-LDS Christians I've personally known.

I would have to say most of them have not had need to further resolve anything either, having views much more closely aligned to LDS belief than not, which they have based on Biblical scripture.

I've given examples here in the past, though mostly what I received in response by non-LDS was that those I used in example must not know, understand, or believe in the teachings of their various faiths. So, go figure.

As for myself, I have had no need to accept the explanations of others on the matter of the Godhead, and it is not because of Joseph Smith that I've not had need to resolve anything further. With the beautiful simplicity of the scriptural record in this matter, I've never found the need.

Here's an example of one of the times I attempted to explained the LDS perspective to someone who claimed LDS were not Christians because, he said, we did not worship the "One True God of the Bible" because we had a different belief regarding the Godhead, than the one he held:

There is only, "One God and Father of all." This is the One True God of the Bible. There is only one Lord and Savior, who is Jesus Christ. He is God's Son. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

God the Father is the First member of the Godhead. Jesus Christ, who is our Savior, is the second member of the Godhead. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. As members of the Godhead, each of these three individuals have the title of God, but God The Father holds preeminence, He being the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, The Great and Almighty God. The Highest, and the Father of all. "The One True God."

It is His work that both the Son and the Holy Ghost do. They speak, act, testify, and bear witness of Him in all things, therefore they do the work of, "The One True God." It is He they serve, not themselves. All teachings and commandments of God ever given to man, come from "The One True God," God the Father, whether He speaks the words Himself, or Christ speaks His words, or the Holy Ghost testifies to them.

All doctrines, whether spoken by the Father's own mouth, or through the mouth of His Son, Jesus Christ, come from the Father, "The One True God." All truths that the Holy Spirit bears witness of to man, come from the mind and will of the Father, "The One True God."

Therefore, even though they are three distinct and separate individuals, they are One God, being One Godhead, as there is only, "One True God," whose work they do. Jesus was sent by Him, and is subordinate to Him, as is the Holy Ghost, who bears witness of God the Father, and of His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Savior of the world. Jesus did not do his own will, but the will of God, his Father, in all things, with his Father, being, "The One True God."

God the Father is our God. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith and our salvation. He suffered, bled, and died for us, so that we, through him, might come unto God the Father and gain eternal life. Therefore, Jesus Christ, whom we praise and adore as Lord, God, and King, is the very center of our faith, and our reverence for what he did for us is beyond measure.

However, we follow Our Savior's example and teachings in our worship of God. We worship the same God that Jesus worshiped, the same God he taught us to worship. We pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to, the same God he taught us to pray to, and we ask all things of God the Father, in Jesus' name, just as Jesus taught, and believe in only, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)

We also echo Paul's teaching, that, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

This does not mean we exclude the other members of the Godhead from worship, because, by the very definition of the word, our worship encompasses them all. But, in the most strict sense of worship, ours is reserved for the God our Lord and Savior taught us to worship, He being God, Our Father.

Hope that helped.​

But, maybe there are those who cannot see the simplicity of that. Or maybe there are those who need God to be more of a mystery. I don't know.

So true. I forgot to mention that, for me, the scriptures speak for themselves. I have seldom had to rely on Brother Joseph to tell me what they meant. It just so happens that when I read them, I understand them the way they are taught in the LDS Church.

And also, everything seems to be Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith. As horrible as it might sound, I'm not a Joseph Smith fan. I am sure he was a great guy and would probably enjoy a meeting with him if ever we were to meet. And I am grateful for the wonderful work he accomplished. But I have no pictures of him in my home. I don't celebrate his birthday. And I don't include him when bearing my testimony.

It seems that the critics that want to focus specifically on him, are barking up the wrong tree when they discuss it with me.

Thanks for pointing out the beauty of the scriptures. I think they say it best.

 

[Ran77]

After I read Ran's reply, I almost jumped back and changed my answer...but I wondered why I had said "well said" in the first place.

PC was drawing a comparison between how some Christians (including himself) can accept things that don't appear to quite really make sense in their theology with how LDS can accept similar things in ours. I don't think his intent was to say that we just take the Prophets word for granted and never think it out. It's a simplified and general statement he makes to allow LDS some wiggle room, because there just are some answers we don't have. We are exhorted constantly to search out the scriptures and to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost in following the Prophet. We are taught to seek out knowledge, not to rely on someone else spoon feeding us. But PC isn't drawing that detailed an analysis, simply explaining why he accepts "I don't know" as an answer.

Then if that is the case, I misunderstood Prison Chaplin and beg his forgiveness. I have a great deal of respect for him and probably my post came out sounding gruffer than I intended. My point is that we do not check our brain in at the door when we become LDS. I believe that I have an explanation that doesn't require me to just accept it, without fully understanding the One God concept.

Prison Chaplin, my apologies if I have offended you. I would not purposely do that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you are currently in a state where you know the truth, and are actively denying or altering it, then you are apostate. If this is not the case, then you are not a part of the Great Apostasy. That's another thread though...

Did you miss my earlier post? (see below)

Thanks for the reply. I did not miss your earlier post and appreciate your copying of it again. I guess my question now is that if Jesus Christ was divine during his mortality, which no other mortal has ever been or every will be, and if He had complete free agency, did He have the slightest inclination to sin?

 

[SoftSpoken]

Thanks for the reply. I did not miss your earlier post and appreciate your copying of it again. I guess my question now is that if Jesus Christ was divine during his mortality, which no other mortal has ever been or every will be, and if He had complete free agency, did He have the slightest inclination to sin?

Yes. Absolutely. From his own mouth he declared that he was inclined to have the Father remove the cup of atonement from him, as he began to feel the incomprehensible weight of it bearing down on him. And that after he had chastised Peter and called him "Satan" for having voiced the idea that he (Christ) should not possibly have to suffer that very thing! I'd say that makes our Savior very, very mortal.

It is my understanding that Christ's mortal test was more severe than any other human's. Where much is given, much is required. He was given the greatest gifts, so he test was therefore commesurate. His was no "technical-level" mortal test. It was the ultimate mortal test!

 

[prisonchaplain]

I resent this sort of implication. And I resent that you make a generalization about the LDS. ... I think you should reconsider this point. Just because you may not find this logical, doesn't mean that others are merely putting their brains on hold because Joseph Smith said this is so.

If you reconsider my post in context, imho you would not need to resent what I said. My guess is that you overinterpet my point--especially in your bolded summary. My argument was that you can more easily accept the LDS Godhead, with its three separate personages, as still being one God, because you trust the source of the teaching. For those of us who do not have that testimony, we are more skeptical, and cannot reconcile the three absolutely separate personages with belief in monotheism.

Likewise, because I accept that the church has been right about the Trinity for nearly 2000 years, and do not believe there was the kind of Great Apostasy taught by LDS, I can tolerate the three distinct persons, one essential God taught as Trinity.

I never meant to suggest that your belief is without logic. On the contrary, my posts consistently stated that both of our doctrines require a certain amount of tolerance for ambiguity that comes with our trust in the source of the teaching.

I POSTED THIS BEFORE READING THE FINAL PAGE--THANK YOU FOR GRANTING ME THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT...HOPEFULLY THIS POST SIMPLY CLARIFIES MY THOUGHT. NO NEED FOR APOLOGIES.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes. Absolutely. From his own mouth he declared that he was inclined to have the Father remove the cup of atonement from him, as he began to feel the incomprehensible weight of it bearing down on him. And that after he had chastised Peter and called him "Satan" for having voiced the idea that he (Christ) should not possibly have to suffer that very thing! I'd say that makes our Savior very, very mortal.

It is my understanding that Christ's mortal test was more severe than any other human's. Where much is given, much is required. He was given the greatest gifts, so he test was therefore commesurate. His was no "technical-level" mortal test. It was the ultimate mortal test!

Jesus Christ Himself stated that in order to sin one only needs to think a sinful thought. Here, you have stated that His prayer in Gethsamene was a clear indication of the "inclination" to sin. This statement by Him was far more than a mere thought. Thus, it appears to me that you do, indeed, consider Jesus Christ to be very, very mortal, to the pont where you have shown one example of what you consider to be a sin on His part. Is this correct?

 

[Ran77]

If you reconsider my post in context, imho you would not need to resent what I said. My guess is that you overinterpet my point--especially in your bolded summary. My argument was that you can more easily accept the LDS Godhead, with its three separate personages, as still being one God, because you trust the source of the teaching. For those of us who do not have that testimony, we are more skeptical, and cannot reconcile the three absolutely separate personages with belief in monotheism.

Likewise, because I accept that the church has been right about the Trinity for nearly 2000 years, and do not believe there was the kind of Great Apostasy taught by LDS, I can tolerate the three distinct persons, one essential God taught as Trinity.

I never meant to suggest that your belief is without logic. On the contrary, my posts consistently stated that both of our doctrines require a certain amount of tolerance for ambiguity that comes with our trust in the source of the teaching.

I POSTED THIS BEFORE READING THE FINAL PAGE--THANK YOU FOR GRANTING ME THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT...HOPEFULLY THIS POST SIMPLY CLARIFIES MY THOUGHT. NO NEED FOR APOLOGIES.

It does clarify your position, which obviously I didn't grasp the finer points of it until it was explained. Thank you.

And I find that you and I agree very much on a point, which is that both positions require a certain amount of tolerance. The truth of the matter is that there is a great deal we don't understand about God. Our attempts to define Him will be flawed. I feel that the two points of view we have are not actually as divergent as many people would like to insist. Both contain a concept that they are one and yet seperate in ways. It is how we reconcile one and seperate that is different. And falling on either side of the argument doesn't make a person insincere in their quest for God. (I know you didn't indicate any such thing, but many do.)

It would be great if people could just admit that God is far too complicated for us to fully comprehend and stop making villains of those who have an alternate idea of how to fill in the blanks.


And thanks again for being understanding.

 

[BarryK]

this is indeed interesting. a poster who useually dances to the tune of "logical fallacies" is now declareing that while somthing may not appear logical to us christians, it in no way means that others are putting their brains on hold

is this a case of holding a double standard, or is this a sign that the poster is starting to come around?

 

[bbbbbbb]

this is indeed interesting. a poster who useually dances to the tune of "logical fallacies" is now declareing that while somthing may not appear logical to us christians, it in no way means that others are putting their brains on hold

is this a case of holding a double standard, or is this a sign that the poster is starting to come around?

As they say, time will tell.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Jesus Christ Himself stated that in order to sin one only needs to think a sinful thought. Here, you have stated that His prayer in Gethsamene was a clear indication of the "inclination" to sin. This statement by Him was far more than a mere thought. Thus, it appears to me that you do, indeed, consider Jesus Christ to be very, very mortal, to the pont where you have shown one example of what you consider to be a sin on His part. Is this correct?

No. It is not correct. You have drawn that conclusion yourself. He did not think a sinful thought. He expressed a legitimate mortal feeling, the pursuit of which would have been sinful. To flee from his foreordained mission would have been sin. To think ill of the Father for having followed through with His plan would have been sin. He committed no sin.

 

[prisonchaplain]

With pun intended, the difference between the Holy Trinity the LDS Godhead is substantial. But, I would no more deny the sincerity of an LDS God-seeker than I would a Muslim one or a Jewish one. Everyone who sincerely seeks God will find Him. So, there is no need to err either on the side of swiping aside signficant differences or of dismissing as evil those who do not yet grasp the veracity of what I and most Christians call orthodoxy.