Ask A Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter ErinGoBragh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, I see no issue with the Trinity and this passage from John. How is it you think Mormon theology (polytheism) answers this? Care to elaborate on the issue? If you are suggesting that they are one in purpose then where does the Trinity confuse that?
My understanding of the Trinity as defined is that it consists of a Being (God) that existed before time, space, matter, etc. This Being has three manifestations (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). When Jesus prayed that His disciples can be one as He and the Father as one, those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition). The LDS view is that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct Beings and They are one in purpose and unity. In this case Jesus’ prayer could be answered by His disciples becoming one in purpose and unity also. I hope that helps.
 
My understanding of the Trinity as defined is that it consists of a Being (God) that existed before time, space, matter, etc. This Being has three manifestations (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). When Jesus prayed that His disciples can be one as He and the Father as one, those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition). The LDS view is that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct Beings and They are one in purpose and unity. In this case Jesus’ prayer could be answered by His disciples becoming one in purpose and unity also. I hope that helps.
one in purpose, as Jesus prayed is not the same as the Trinity. Again, your once-sinful god is not the true God
 
My understanding of the Trinity as defined is that it consists of a Being (God) that existed before time, space, matter, etc. This Being has three manifestations (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). When Jesus prayed that His disciples can be one as He and the Father as one, those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition). The LDS view is that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct Beings and They are one in purpose and unity. In this case Jesus’ prayer could be answered by His disciples becoming one in purpose and unity also. I hope that helps.
Ah, but we need to be careful, that sounds like Modalism or very similar, which is a heresy. (not one being, three personalities) Three Persons, One Nature. It is a mystery of faith because we can not fully understand how that is, what it ‘looks’ like, etc. We can not anthropomorphize God; we are the created, He is the Creator. Any similarity to mankind is His design, but the Creator is not the created any more than da Vinci is the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo is his David.

Our ‘involvement’ is very complex; from being one in purpose, being one in the Body of Christ, one in participation, one in love, etc.
 
Ah, but we need to be careful, that sounds like Modalism or very similar, which is a heresy. (not one being, three personalities) Three Persons, One Nature. It is a mystery of faith because we can not fully understand how that is, what it ‘looks’ like, etc. We can not anthropomorphize God; we are the created, He is the Creator. Any similarity to mankind is His design, but the Creator is not the created any more than da Vinci is the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo is his David.

Our ‘involvement’ is very complex; from being one in purpose, being one in the Body of Christ, one in participation, one in love, etc.
Agreed. Gazelam’s understanding sounds very much like modalism which is a heresy. I was taught that understanding of the Trinity when I was LDS, which I now know to be completely incorrect. In RCIA, I was taught One Divine Substance, Three Persons. There is lots of information on this website about the true teachings on the Trinity.
 
Agreed. Gazelam’s understanding sounds very much like modalism which is a heresy. I was taught that understanding of the Trinity when I was LDS, which I now know to be completely incorrect. In RCIA, I was taught One Divine Substance, Three Persons. There is lots of information on this website about the true teachings on the Trinity.
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
 
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
Whose interpretation? Your own? The LDS Church’s? How do you know you understand it the way Jesus meant it? I’d check into the Early Church Fathers and see if they agree or disagree with your assertion.

I do not see that as literally as you do, one in purpose works.
 
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
"What Jesus asks for them is unity—a unity of souls, imitative of the Divine Trinity (and, no doubt, a social unity of bodies in which St Cyril sees the effect of the Holy Eucharist)—a unity which will be a proof to the world that God is here.

Leonard, W. (1953). The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St John. (B. Orchard & E. F. Sutcliffe, Eds.)A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (p. 1010). Toronto: Thomas Nelson.

The Internal Unity of the Church. A common proverb says: “Many heads, many minds”; but the first Christians proved the fallacy of the saying. The Christian flock counted many thousand heads, but they were all of one mind, as if they had one heart and one soul. This wonderful unity was the work of the Holy Ghost, whose grace changed the hearts of the faithful, and made them all ready to obey the Apostolic teaching. Thus was granted the prayer of our great High Priest for His Church: “I pray that all may be one, that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me” (John 17:21).

Knecht, F. J. (1910). A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture (p. 747). London: B. Herder.

820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, … so that the world may know that you have sent me.”278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. (2748)

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 217). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Finally, He prays for all together; He asks for the entire Church, the gift of perfect union among themselves, similar to the union existing among the Persons of the Adorable Trinity, and the ineffable blessings of eternal happiness (21–26).
21. “That they all may be one.” He asks for all, for the entire Church, the same blessing of unity that He had already asked for the Apostles (v. 11). Here, He prays only for the faithful; elsewhere, as on the cross, He prays for His enemies and unbelievers (v. 9–11). “All one,” united in the bonds of faith, hope, charity concord and subordination, in a manner similar, though unequal, to the essential union of the Divine nature. The union of will and love which exists in us, “as Thou, Father, in Me,” and that this perfect union may be forwarded and accomplished by their union with us in sanctifying grace, and supernatural love of charity, which makes us, as it were, partakers of the Divine nature.
“May be one in us, as Thou,” etc. “As,” can only convey a similarity of union in some respects; but, not equality. For creatures could never attain the adorable union that exists in the Godhead. The three Persons in the Godhead are united by the same Divine nature, identical in each. We are united in an analogous or similar way, by concord and charity and subordination, which has its origin and binding power and persevering stability in God’s grace, “one in us,” and this union our Lord here prays for all the members of His Church.
“That the world,” all mankind, believers and unbelievers, “may believe;” the believers confirmed in their faith; and the unbelievers brought to embrace it, on beholding this moral miracle of supernatural union, which could come from God alone, between the faithful among themselves, as well as their union with God. “That Thou hast sent Me,” and, that My doctrine comes from Thee which was the great theme of His own preaching and that of the Apostles.

MacEvilly, J. (1902). An Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (pp. 322–323). Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son.
 
Ver. 21. “That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee.”
Here again the “as” doth not denote exact similarity in their case, (for it was not possible for them in so great a degree,) but only as far as was possible for men. Just as when He saith, “Be ye merciful, as your Father.” (Luke 6:36.)

John Chrysostom. (1889). Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John. (G. T. Stupart, Tran.)A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume XIV: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews (p. 304). New York: Christian Literature Company.

“So great is the ignorance and mental darkness of those whom we have mentioned, that they are unable to see the light of truth. They cannot comprehend the meaning of the words: ‘that they may be one in us.’ It is obvious why the word ‘one’ was used; it was because the apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none amongst them who were the Spirit, neither was there any one of them who was Word, Wisdom, Power, or Only-begotten. ‘As Thou,’ He said, ‘and I are one, that they, may be one in us.’ These holy words, ‘that they may be one in us,’ are strictly accurate: for the Lord did not say, ‘one in the same way that I and the Father are one,’ but He said, ‘that the disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in faith and in confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the Father, and by the indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to become one.’*”

Theodoret of Cyrus. (1892). The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. (B. Jackson, Tran.)A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume III: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (p. 72). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, “that all may be one … as we are one” (John 17:21–22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.

Catholic Church. (2011). Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes. Vatican II Documents. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
 
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it.
And Jesus, fully God and fully human, you guys always seem to forget that.
 
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
I’m at work right now and typing this on my phone, so I’ll provide a more substantive response later. However I did want to point out that your understanding of the Trinity is flawed, at least as presented in your prior post, which perhaps is why you believe that the Trinitarian understanding of God is incompatible with John 17:22. Case not closed.

What does “divine substance” mean? Your understanding of that would be instructive, so I’m curious to know what you mean (or, what you believe Trinitarians mean) by that phrase.
 
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
no…you are taking two different ideas and trying to force them into one. You are taking the idea of unity and trying to say Jesus is talking about Godhood. That attempt of fitting square pegs into round holes is the problem with the lds chuch.

it is that need to fit that causes you to make your god into a once-sinful human

case closed
 
My understanding of the Trinity as defined is that it consists of a Being (God) that existed before time, space, matter, etc. This Being has three manifestations (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). When Jesus prayed that His disciples can be one as He and the Father as one, those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition). The LDS view is that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct Beings and They are one in purpose and unity. In this case Jesus’ prayer could be answered by His disciples becoming one in purpose and unity also. I hope that helps.
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
No, the Trinity is not defined as the belief in a single being with separate manifestations. Indeed, that sounds more like the heresy of Modalism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Frequently, LDS and other non-Trinitarians, when seeking to critique the traditional Trinity doctrine, do not actually address the Trinity doctrine, but instead the Modalistic heresy. I’ve seen this many times in LDS-related books, conference talks, etc (usually expressed in some form of “if Jesus is the same as the Father, why would He pray to Himself?”). Further, it is important to define terms, since more often than not, LDS and traditional Christians are not using words like “being” and “substance” in the same way. From your post above, I’d venture to guess that you are not using the word “being” in the same way that it is being used in the Trinity doctrine, as defined anciently (what do you mean by “single being”? Is that the same as “single person”?).

You previously started a thread on “LDS, Creeds, and the Trinity” to which I responded on issues related to comparing and contrasting the LDS Godhead and the traditional Trinity, and I’ll direct you to my posts in that thread which point out why your attempted criticism isn’t based in a true understanding of what is meant by the Trinity, and is therefore a straw man argument (and I’ll also note that while it may be said that, due to our finite human minds, we cannot fully know and comprehend God (and that eternity will be spent knowing God, meaning, there will never be a single point in time where we will fully know everything about the eternal God), this is different from understanding the actual definition of the Trinity doctrine).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10877041&postcount=2
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10880286&postcount=21
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10880469&postcount=25
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10880488&postcount=27
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10883424&postcount=39
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10889282&postcount=52
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10892635&postcount=57
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10894095&postcount=62
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10894628&postcount=65
 
My understanding of the Trinity as defined is that it consists of a Being (God) that existed before time, space, matter, etc. This Being has three manifestations (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). When Jesus prayed that His disciples can be one as He and the Father as one, those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition). The LDS view is that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct Beings and They are one in purpose and unity. In this case Jesus’ prayer could be answered by His disciples becoming one in purpose and unity also. I hope that helps.
My critique goes for whatever the official teaching is of the Trinity. It won’t stand up to John 17:22 (“as we are one”). If the official teaching is “One Divine Substance, Three Persons”, so be it. There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.
As we’ve seen, your understanding of the Trinity is incorrect, hence why your statement “those disciples would need to somehow merge together to become a single being with separate manifestations (like the Trinitarian definition)” is a straw man, and is certainly not “the Trinitarian definition”. What does it mean to be one in “unity”? That sounds like saying they’re one in oneness, which isn’t really descriptive.

For Trinitarians, the oneness of God most certainly includes a oneness of purpose and most especially love (there are many references in Catholic resources discussing the indwelling love of the Trinity and how that is an example for us). The oneness of “being” or “substance” quite simply refers to “nature” (as I pointed out in your previous thread, Trinitarians believe that there is a difference of nature between God and man, while LDS believe that God and man are of the same nature or species, and the difference is one of progression). It is the nature of God to eternally exist as the distinct Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is what is meant by oneness of being or substance (similarly, Trinitarians believe that when God the Son became man, He became one in substance, or consubstantial, with humanity. That obviously doesn’t mean we’re all the same entity or person, or manifestations of something).

Therefore, there is no problem with John 17:22 in the context of the Trinity doctrine. God wants us all to be one with each other just like how there is oneness in the Trinity. A oneness not only of purpose and that eternal love that binds the Trinity together, but also to actually become, through Christ, like God, or “gods” if you will (known as the doctrine of theosis, taught by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches). St. Athanasius said anciently that through Jesus Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature. God wants us all to share in His life, and through the grace of God, we can become like God. Through the process of sanctification, through partaking of the sacramental mysteries, most especially the Eucharist, we become more Christ-like, including in our behavior, expressing that Godly love that is found within the Trinity by nature, and which we can continue to exhibit through God’s grace. I see John 17:22 not only as fully compatible with the Trinity (properly understood), but also implicitly compatible with theosis or deification, and becoming by grace what God is by nature (nature=being=essence=substance).

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
 
I’m at work right now and typing this on my phone, so I’ll provide a more substantive response later. However I did want to point out that your understanding of the Trinity is flawed, at least as presented in your prior post, which perhaps is why you believe that the Trinitarian understanding of God is incompatible with John 17:22. Case not closed.
LivingWaters7;11113448:
What does “divine substance” mean? Your understanding of that would be instructive, so I’m curious to know what you mean (or, what you believe Trinitarians mean) by that phrase.
I was reiterating iepuras’ verbiage in post #650.
 
I was reiterating iepuras’ verbiage in post #650.
Ok, that’s fine, however I’m wondering what you think is meant by it. You can’t offer a critique of something if you don’t understand it. You said “There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.”. So, what is your understanding of “divine substance” that led you to say that? That’s what I was getting at.
 
Ok, that’s fine, however I’m wondering what you think is meant by it. You can’t offer a critique of something if you don’t understand it. You said “There is no way that Christ’s mortal disciples will ever become united in the sense that they become separate persons of a single divine substance the way that The Father and the Son are united per the Trinitarian belief. Case closed.”. So, what is your understanding of “divine substance” that led you to say that? That’s what I was getting at.
And if it is going to be critiqued the actual belief should be stated correctly. We do not believe in three separate Persons, but rather three DISTINCT Persons in one being. God cannot be separated.
 
And if it is going to be critiqued the actual belief should be stated correctly. We do not believe in three separate Persons, but rather three DISTINCT Persons in one being. God cannot be separated.
Thanks for this post. And also thanks to LW7 post #660. Both are helpful for my understanding of the Holy Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top