LDS Wondering About the Godhead and the Trinity

[spockrates]

Fantastic! I myself am always striving in that direction- though I confess to many many backslides.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope, but worth the climb, especially when you look over your shoulder and see how far up that mountain you've come, not to mention how beautiful the view is from up there!

 

[Peter1000]

spockrates says:

Regarding substance, the only way it makes sense to me is in using the phrase some trinitarians (often Evangelicals) use:

God is one what in three who's.

The substance is the What of God, the persons are the Who's.

If this is suppose to explain something, I am not following it.
Let's break this up into 2 parts:

God is one what? You then say that the substance is the What of God. That does not seem to make sense, nor does it articulate what the substance is.

in three who's? You then say the persons are the Who's. This makes a little sense to me. There are 3 Persons in the Trinity. Not sure why anyone would use the word 'who's'. It is quite confusing.

I do not mean to be rude, but the statement "God is one what in three who's" is a very confusing statement that to me does not explain anything, and only confuses the matter more.

Please help me out. I am a Mormon.

 

[spockrates]

spockrates says:

If this is suppose to explain something, I am not following it.
Let's break this up into 2 parts:

God is one what? You then say that the substance is the What of God. That does not seem to make sense, nor does it articulate what the substance is.

in three who's? You then say the persons are the Who's. This makes a little sense to me. There are 3 Persons in the Trinity. Not sure why anyone would use the word 'who's'. It is quite confusing.

I do not mean to be rude, but the statement "God is one what in three who's" is a very confusing statement that to me does not explain anything, and only confuses the matter more.

Please help me out. I am a Mormon.

Hi Peter1000. Great question. Not rude at all, and yes, I'll help you out.

So if a trinitarian were to say God is a person, then the doctrine of the Trinity would result in a logical contradiction.

The problem:

There is only one God in three persons.
​

would equate to

There is only one [person] in three persons.
​

and

There is only one God who is three persons.
​

would equate to

God is one [person] who is three persons.
​

The resulting conclusion would be illogical:

God is only one person and is not only one person.
​

* * *​

The solution:

By saying God is one what in three persons (or three who's) the doctrine avoids a logicical contradiction. For a what isn't a who. So

God is one [what] in three [who's].
​

and

God is one [what] that is three [who's].
​

are two ideas that although unusual, are still logical.

 

[spockrates]

Peter1000:

So the question a trinitarian has to answer is this: What is the what of God?

I have an idea what the answer might be if you care to consider it and tell my why you think it's lacking.

(I won't be offended if you hear me out and tell me why my opinion isn't correct. In fact, I'd thank you for doing so!)

 

[Peter1000]

Sounds like you are not familiar with your own church.

Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. (Bible Dictionary)​

If Jesus is the "eldest of the spirit children of Elohim," then he was created just like us.

Apparently, you are unaware that we know from the bible in 2 different scriptures that Jesus is the 'firstborn'='eldest' of the creatures of God. Since we know that Jesus was not the firstborn man in the flesh, we then know that he must have been the firstborn spirit of the spirits created by God.

The use of the word 'created' is confusing to you because you have associated it with 'created out of of nothing', and that is not biblical. The word 'created' actually means formed or made from eternally, uncreated essence/substance/material.

Jesus has existed forever and was not 'created' in the sense that he was created out of nothing. His intelligence and his spirit have existed forever. Your intelligence and spirit have existed forever. God united the intelligence and the spirit and we all became spirit children of God the Father, Jesus was the firstborn of these spirit children.

It is a great study, and the bible is full of interesting information. This topic is one of them. Any questions, just ask.

 

[Peter1000]

Hi Peter1000. Great question. Not rude at all, and yes, I'll help you out.

So if a trinitarian were to say God is a person, then the doctrine of the Trinity would result in a logical contradiction.

The problem:

There is only one God in three persons.
​

would equate to

There is only one [person] in three persons.
​

and

There is only one God who is three persons.
​

would equate to

God is one [person] who is three persons.
​

The resulting conclusion would be illogical:

God is only one person and is not only one person.
​

* * *​

The solution:

By saying God is one what in three persons (or three who's) the doctrine avoids a logicical contradiction. For a what isn't a who. So

God is one [what] in three [who's].
​

and

God is one [what] that is three [who's].
​

are two ideas that although unusual, are still logical.

The word 'what' seems out of place. The word 'who's' seems out of place.

If you are saying that a 'what' is not a 'who', and that solves the problem. It may solve it in your mind, but not mine. And even if it did solve the problem that you are describing, it opens up lots of unanswered questions about the 'what' and the 'who' and are they even biblical expressions. So I am not sure where to go with this reasoning. Sorry.

 

[Peter1000]

Peter1000:

So the question a trinitarian has to answer is this: What is the what of God?

I have an idea what the answer might be if you care to consider it and tell my why you think it's lacking.

(I won't be offended if you hear me out and tell me why my opinion isn't correct. In fact, I'd thank you for doing so!)

That is one question. What is the what of God? Go ahead and try to answer that for me, I would be interested. Thanks.

 

[spockrates]

The word 'what' seems out of place. The word 'who's' seems out of place.

If you are saying that a 'what' is not a 'who', and that solves the problem. It may solve it in you mind, but not mine. And even if it did solve the problem that you are describing, it opens up lots of unanswered questions about the 'what' and the 'who' and are they even biblical expressions. So I am not sure where to go with this reasoning. Sorry.

Since the word God is a noun, can it denote anything other than a person, place or thing?

 

[Peter1000]

I believe the issue with Mormons
Is they put Joseph Smith on an equal level with Jesus as he wrote a separate bible
Book of mormon

What a silly thought. I think you know better.

JS also did not write the BOM, he translated the words of Jesus to prophets from gold plates and presented this book to the world as a second witness that Jesus is truely the Christ, the Son of God, and savior of the world.

If you are truely a teacher, you need to get up to date on your Mormon history, it will help.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Since the word God is a noun, can it denote anything other than a person, place or thing?

Sure it can. Like ideas are also nouns. And "thing" is a very open definition that can fit... well about anything

 

[spockrates]

That is one question. What is the what of God? Go ahead and try to answer that for me, I would be interested. Thanks.

EDIT: It seems to me every attribite of trinitarian concept of God can be categorized as:

1. That which is omnipotent
2. That which is omniscient
3. That which is omni-benevolent

Of these, (2) and (3) are the traits of a person, not a thing. For a person can but a thing can't reason (2), and a person can but a thing can't feel emotions (3).

Of these, (1) is the only trait a thing can possess, because a thing can be powerful. For example, the sun of our solar system produces great atomic power.

EDIT: The inference, then is this: If trinitarians are correct, and God is indeed one what in three who's, the what of God (i.e., the thing God is) might be omnipotence. At least, that's the only way I can imagine God could possibly be a thing that is in three persons.

 

[spockrates]

Sure it can. Like ideas are also nouns. And "thing" is a very open definition that can fit... well about anything

Wait...what?

Not sure what you're thinking. The kid in me was thinking of School House Rock!

 

[spockrates]

Peter1000:

But isn't it true that Latter Day Saints also believe God can be what (albeit a thing of a different kind)?

 

[Peter1000]

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure that "feuding" is included in the definition of "polytheism". Either way, the point was, in another thread, one Mormon rejected polytheism, while another embraced polytheism.

I was the Mormon that accepted the idea that we are poytheistic. But you did not mention that I stipulated that although I can view our belief in a polytheistic way, it is not the same as the pagan Greek and Roman polytheistic mumbo jumbo.

Their gods are immoral, greedy, mischievous, fight each other, fornicate with each other, etc., etc., etc.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS are 3 separate Persons, but are so unified in Their purpose that it is as if They are one God.

It is of course, night and day different than pagan polytheism. Just to let you know.

 

[Peter1000]

Peter1000:

But isn't it true that Latter Day Saints also believe God can be what (albeit a thing of a different kind)?

So are you saying that 'what' = a thing of a different kind?

It is strange to me to say 'God can be what'?

 

[spockrates]

So are you saying that 'what' = a thing of a different kind?

It is strange to me to say 'God can be what'?

Yes, a what is another way of saying a thing, or an it. That is, something that isn't a person nor a place.

EDIT: So yes, I was asking if you know of an instance where the noun God can sometimes be used in LDS doctrine to refer to a thing, rather than a person.

 

[Peter1000]

Since the word God is a noun, can it denote anything other than a person, place or thing?

No. But to think of God as anything other than a Person would be strange. He is not a place and although He is also technically a thing, we know what kind of a thing He is, and so we refer to Him in his proper designation as a Person, so it would eliminate the designation of 'thing'.

 

[spockrates]

No. But to think of God as anything other than a Person would be strange. He is not a place and although He is also technically a thing, we know what kind of a thing He is, and so we refer to Him in his proper designation as a Person, so it would eliminate the designation of 'thing'.

Understood. But I was thinking of something different, perhaps. Isn't it true that sometimes it's acceptable for a LDS to say the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are together one God?

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, a what is another way of saying a thing, or an it. That is, something that isn't a person nor a place.

EDIT: So yes, I was asking if you know of an instance where the noun God can sometimes be used in LDS doctrine to refer to a thing, rather than a person.

Again, since we know what He is, it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a thing or a place, or an it, or a 'what'. He is a God/Person.

 

[Peter1000]

Understood. But I was thinking of something different, perhaps. Isn't it true that sometimes it's acceptable for a LDS to say the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are together one God?

Yes. But the underlying doctrine is always understood. They are only one in purpose, not in essence/substance.