LDS Wondering About the Godhead and the Trinity

[throughfiierytrial]

If you omit #6, then Mormons count has Trinitarians. It is point #6 that LDS differ from Nicene Christians (the LDS version of #6 would be that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one through unity).

Well, we know that's not true.
I believe it best left unwritten/undefined...the three are one says it all. If one may refer to Jesus as the Everlasting Father as it says in Isaiah then they are truly, truly ONE. Just as Scripture says they are One. I find no need to say they are of the same substance only b/c I feel that is making assumptions about something far above our reasoning...we should see that for ourselves in that the 3 are 1...not our logic, not our language, not our world.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Well, we know that's not true.
I believe it best left unwritten/undefined...the three are one says it all. If one may refer to Jesus as the Everlasting Father as it says in Isaiah then they are truly, truly ONE. Just as Scripture says they are One. I find no need to say they are of the same substance only b/c I feel that is making assumptions about something far above our reasoning...we should see that for ourselves in that the 3 are 1...not our logic, not our language, not our world.

And LDS believe that they are ONE. One through unity, not through substance.

 

[Karl.C]

Understood. Thanks. So I find it fascinating that Catholics and Latter Day Saints both believe God to be a what. The difference being this:

Whereas Catholics believe God is a what in three who's, LDS believe God is three who's in a what.

Don't make the mistake of limiting the idea that "God is a what" not a "who" as an idea of the Papacy. Such is the opinion of the majority confession (RCC, ROC, EOC, OOC etc) approximately a billion or so adherents. And that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, as that is the apostolic witness found in scripture. Actually, it is the OT witness also! Did you know that apart from two places in Isaiah the idea God is never used without qualificaton "my, our, of etc)? Also, in the OT (as Jesus pointed out a few times) the idea "God" is used to describe men & angels in the affirmative, and idols as a negation. Whatever benefits life or can instigate death is "God" according to the OT, and YHWH defines himself in those terms at Deut 32:39 and elsewhere...

I should clarify that mainstream (the majority) Christianity holds the Father to be the source & cause of the Son's & Spirit's divinity. Hence our emphasis on their filial relationship...

As for the LDS: a good forger makes his replication as close as possible to the original...

 

[Karl.C]

Hi again @throughfireytrial . So the biblical support for the premises of the logical argument for the Trinity are the pieces of the puzzle. These premises are:

1. There is only one God. Isaiah 43:10.
2. The Father is God. 1 Corinthians 8:6.
3. The Son is God. Hebrews 1:8.
   
4. The Holy Spirit is God. Acts 5:3–4.
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Matthew 3:16.
6. The one God is a substace that is in three persons.

Therefore,

A. the Bible teaches the Trinity.
​

The missing puzzle piece is the biblical passage supporting premise (6). Without that, the argument for conclusion (A) is weak, since a logical argument is only as strong as it's weakest premise.

Hebrews 1:8 only works if you think the original addressee is also "God" (aka David Ps 45:6). Many grammarians I have encountered advocate the English text should read "God is your throne..."

The reality is that apart from 2 Peter 1:1 all texts used by "sunday schooled" protestant apologists are grammatically ambiguous in the Greek, so they can't be used as conclusive proof texts.

2 Peter 1:1 is disputed on a textual basis. If the Greek is taken as a dogmatic statement, it is in direct conflict with vs2, all of 1 Peter & most of 2 Peter (not to mention the rest of the NT). The KJV rendering is generally accepted as the most appropriate translation. There are Syriac manuscripts that have "our Lord and Saviour" instead of "our God and Saviour" in the last clause, and another bunch described as "in the Arabic" which just refer to "our Lord". Anyway, the KJV here is based on Beza's text (which was the GNT of the day). Beza's text has "tou theou emon kai soteros emon Iesou Christou". Notice the second "emon"...

Acts 5:3-4 also suffers from ambiguity. So is disputed. Compare Romans 8. To which "Holy Spirit" did Ananias lie? The Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit or one of the others? Contemplate Romans 8:5-6 for a possible explanation of Acts 5:3-4.

The Trinity confession of Nicea/Constantinople is holistic
and not based on mining texts out of context, which is why it has persevered through all attacks throughout the centuries...

ps: "6. The one God is a substance that is in three persons." "Substance" is an archaic English term which had no connotations of materiality. Modern theologians use the English term "substantiality". The originial terms in Greek are hypostasis & ousia. Both mean "the concrete reality of a thing" (literally: what lis beneath). hypostasis=the primary specimen (the individual), ousia the secondary specimen (the group).

 

[NYCGuy]

If you omit #6, then Mormons count has Trinitarians. It is point #6 that LDS differ from Nicene Christians (the LDS version of #6 would be that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one through unity).

Where does the LDS church teach that they are "one through unity"?

 

[Karl.C]

Would you mind defining what you mean by "monogenes" here? I'm admittedly not familiar with this term and a quick Google search isn't helping me out.

I understood you to have advocated that LDS doctrine is based on the Bible. Apparently not!

Monogenes is the word used by the apostle John to describe Jesus' status in respect to his Father (5 times). It is also used 3 times by Luke to describe someone's only child.

Most strange you didn't find anything useful in google. I just typed "Monogenes" in google, pressed enter and whammo pages upon pages of useful info...

LDS don't believe in exnhilio creation. God does/did create all things, but not out of nothing. How spirits were formed is not something we understand at this time. But we can safely say it wasn't "copulation" cumulating with a physical baby out of a birth canal

Fair call. Us Trins are in the same boat regarding the origination of the Son. Albeit, I like to say the Son was birthed as a consequent of the Father's exuberant nature. Aka 1 John 4:8,16

What about it were you asking? (Sorry if I'm not properly understanding your question). He has a glorified physical body like the Son. We were all made in His image. The Spirit does not have a physical body.

I understand the LDS view of the Spirit & that of the Son. But I see no need for the Father to have a body of flesh & bones, unless your scenario entails some form of "ground hog day".

The apostles in the NT and therefore the mainstream Churches hold that Jesus derived his flesh & bones from Mary when he was incarnated into human form. It is accepted that in his pre-existent state he was a spirit entity like his Father. Aka, John 4:24.

 

[spockrates]

...

I, myself, believe that #6 should be omitted. One still has a Trinity. In my view #6 is man's fallible interpretation and must be taken with a grain of salt. I suppose they made that assumption based on the fact that they are One, yet three. Aside from this, that weakness shouldn't lead one to seek out a completely different religion...Mormonism for answers. Search your Scriptures yourself, the Holy Spirit guides us as we search prayerfully.
Look at the answer which was provided to you by Jane_Doe...the question I do not know...her comment on Jesus and Satan is so utterly false and earthly thinking. It is extra-Biblical and it is simply the babblings and ramblings of a man and not a prophet of God at all. Why would God rehash the fall of Satan and contradict His Word? And Jesus is portrayed as God in O.T. You need citations, ask and I'll provide them.
God is a righteous Judge and O.T. Law and Proverbs 11:1 and Proverbs 20:10, 23 state He hates dishonest measures...He judges people by the same standards...problem with Mormonism is that their standards are in a constant state of flux due to their new prophesy...the dead of their own did not go in under the same standards. It is not Truth you'll find in their theology. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. --Hebrews 13:8

No worries! Perhaps this is more acceptable?

1. There is only one God. Isaiah 43:10.
2. The Father is God. 1 Corinthians 8:6.
3. The Son is God. Hebrews 1:8.
4. The Holy Spirit is God. Acts 5:3-4.
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Matthew 3:16.
6. God is a being.

Therefore,

A. The one God is a being that is in three persons.​

Or should we say the one God that is in three persons is neither a substance nor a being?

 

[spockrates]

Don't make the mistake of limiting the idea that "God is a what" not a "who" as an idea of the Papacy. Such is the opinion of the majority confession (RCC, ROC, EOC, OOC etc) approximately a billion or so adherents. And that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, as that is the apostolic witness found in scripture. Actually, it is the OT witness also! Did you know that apart from two places in Isaiah the idea God is never used without qualificaton "my, our, of etc)? Also, in the OT (as Jesus pointed out a few times) the idea "God" is used to describe men & angels in the affirmative, and idols as a negation. Whatever benefits life or can instigate death is "God" according to the OT, and YHWH defines himself in those terms at Deut 32:39 and elsewhere...

I should clarify that mainstream (the majority) Christianity holds the Father to be the source & cause of the Son's & Spirit's divinity. Hence our emphasis on their filial relationship...

As for the LDS: a good forger makes his replication as close as possible to the original...

I hear what you're saying. It seems to me that the fact God refers to itself (or himselves?) as plural, rather than singular can mean either:

a. God is a Trinity of three persons who are distinct but not separate
or
b. God is a unity of three persons who are distinct and separate​

Of course, Latter Day Saints affirm (b) and Catholics are proponents of (a). Me? I'm not sure. For scripture appears to me to be logically interpreted either way. So then, would you say it comes down to answering this question?

Which religious authority is more likely to be teaching the truth--the Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
​

 

[NYCGuy]

I hear what you're saying. It seems to me that the fact God refers to itself (or himselves?) as plural, rather than singular can mean either:

a. God is a Trinity of three persons who are distinct but not separate
or
b. God is a unity of three persons who are distinct and separate​

Of course, Latter Day Saints affirm (b) and Catholics are proponents of (a). Me? I'm not sure. For scripture appears to me to be logically interpreted either way. So then, would you say it comes down to answering this question?

Which religious authority is more likely to be teaching the truth--the Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
​

What does "distinct but not separate" mean? What does "distinct and separate" mean?

 

[spockrates]

Hebrews 1:8 only works if you think the original addressee is also "God" (aka David Ps 45:6). Many grammarians I have encountered advocate the English text should read "God is your throne..."

The reality is that apart from 2 Peter 1:1 all texts used by "sunday schooled" protestant apologists are grammatically ambiguous in the Greek, so they can't be used as conclusive proof texts.

2 Peter 1:1 is disputed on a textual basis. If the Greek is taken as a dogmatic statement, it is in direct conflict with vs2, all of 1 Peter & most of 2 Peter (not to mention the rest of the NT). The KJV rendering is generally accepted as the most appropriate translation. There are Syriac manuscripts that have "our Lord and Saviour" instead of "our God and Saviour" in the last clause, and another bunch described as "in the Arabic" which just refer to "our Lord". Anyway, the KJV here is based on Beza's text (which was the GNT of the day). Beza's text has "tou theou emon kai soteros emon Iesou Christou". Notice the second "emon"...

Acts 5:3-4 also suffers from ambiguity. So is disputed. Compare Romans 8. To which "Holy Spirit" did Ananias lie? The Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit or one of the others? Contemplate Romans 8:5-6 for a possible explanation of Acts 5:3-4.

The Trinity confession of Nicea/Constantinople is holistic
and not based on mining texts out of context, which is why it has persevered through all attacks throughout the centuries...

ps: "6. The one God is a substance that is in three persons." "Substance" is an archaic English term which had no connotations of materiality. Modern theologians use the English term "substantiality". The originial terms in Greek are hypostasis & ousia. Both mean "the concrete reality of a thing" (literally: what lis beneath). hypostasis=the primary specimen (the individual), ousia the secondary specimen (the group).

Thank you

 

[spockrates]

What does "distinct but not separate" mean? What does "distinct and separate" mean?

By distinct, I mean they think their own thoughts and relate to one another. By separate, I mean they are individuals in the same way as human beings are individuals, and they do not share the same substance nor the same being.

As a Catholic, I believe you might agree the Catholic Church teaches the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct but never separate. For if they were separate, they would be not only different persons but also different Gods.

EDIT: But it has been a long time since I left the Catholic Church, and I like to joke with my non-Catholic friends that I've forgotten more about Catholicism than they'll ever know! So perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I understood you to have advocated that LDS doctrine is based on the Bible. Apparently not!

Monogenes is the word used by the apostle John to describe Jesus' status in respect to his Father (5 times). It is also used 3 times by Luke to describe someone's only child.

If you want to cite the verses here, we can use the words the verses use and talk about them . I think I'm gathering from your post here the scriptural words you're referring to are "only Begotten"?

I understand the LDS view of the Spirit & that of the Son. But I see no need for the Father to have a body of flesh & bones, unless your scenario entails some form of "ground hog day".

It's your word "need" here that's throwing me here. From the LDS perspective, the Father having a physical body is simply a statement of Truth God has revealed in scripture. It's not something we really attached a "need" to.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

And LDS believe that they are ONE. One through unity, not through substance.

I am not saying that they are One via unity only we know that...
Ephesians 5:29-32:
After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Also, I did not say how they are One, it is just simply that they are One, just as it is written. The how is a mystery that many are "taking stabs at" to try to define the undefinable or in an attempt to not dumb down the profound mystery by calling it "unity" or some such teachings. I am saying it is not to be defined...passages indicate they are One and that is all that matters.
I trust I am clear now.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I am not saying that they are One via unity only we know that...
Ephesians 5:29-32:
After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Also, I did not say how they are One, it is just simply that they are One, just as it is written. The how is a mystery that many are "taking stabs at" to try to define the undefinable or in an attempt to not dumb down the profound mystery by calling it "unity" or some such teachings. I am saying it is not to be defined...passages indicate they are One and that is all that matters.
I trust I am clear now.

So then do you disagree/object to the Creedal statements or to LDS which do define it?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So then do you disagree/object to the Creedal statements or to LDS which do define it?

I object to the making of creeds...the Bible is our creed.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I object to the making of creeds...

I agree with you on this point, though your answer does come unexpected from a CF supporter (given it's policy of mandatory creed affirmation).

I do thank you for your time chatting with me . It has been enjoyable.

 

[NYCGuy]

By distinct, I mean they think their own thoughts and relate to one another. By separate, I mean they are individuals in the same way as human beings are individuals, and they do not share the same substance nor the same being.

As a Catholic, I believe you might agree the Catholic Church teaches the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct but never separate. For if they were separate, they would be not only different persons but also different Gods.

EDIT: But it has been a long time since I left the Catholic Church, and I like to joke with my non-Catholic friends that I've forgotten more about Catholicism than they'll ever know! So perhaps I'm mistaken.

Yes, Catholics believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, meaning they are not each other, and that they are inseparable, meaning that they are in an eternal relationship with each other (i.e. the Trinity has always existed as such).

And yes, we reject any idea that the Persons of the Trinity are three Gods.

 

[NYCGuy]

Still waiting to see where the LDS church claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one through unity".

 

[spockrates]

Still waiting to see where the LDS church claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one through unity".

How about John 10:30?

"I and my Father are one."​

Since the Father and Son are distinct, how can they be one other than through a unity of purpose?

EDIT: I'm thinking Catholics maybe don't disagree the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unified. They disagree that a unity of purpose is all that unifies them. But what do you think?

 

[NYCGuy]

How about John 10:30?

"I and my Father are one."​

Again, I'm asking where "the LDS church" claims that the oneness is one of "unity" (I'm being very specific here).