Not quite. What you mean by “Persons” is not the same as what we mean by “Personages”. Our “Personages” have no ambiguity in them. You can see them as two separate beings, one of them pointing to the other. Your “Persons” do not imply the same thing. A child of six would not have any difficulty understanding the Mormon “Personages,” but would have quite a lot of difficulty wrapping his head round your “Persons”.
Elder Holland referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “persons”, not “personages”, in his Oct. 2007 General Conference talk. In the May 1974 article “The Holy Ghost” by President Marion Romney (Second Counselor in the First Presidency), the Holy Ghost is referred to as a “person”, as well as a “personage”. It seems as if LDS authorities do not share your distinction between “person” and “personage”, and Trinitarians are clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are real, distinct entities/persons, that the Son prayed to the Father (and not to Himself), that the “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26 shows that there was more than one Person present a creation, etc.
Okay. The purpose of this thread was to discuss those Mormons that are in favor of making such comparisons, and instead of comparing the LDS Godhead to Trinitarianism, they compare it to Modalism. If they are going to do such a thing (compare their beliefs to those of others), then it would be helpful to get it right, especially since Mormons are aware of their own beliefs being misrepresented by critics in various settings.
Who decided that this was the “core element” of the LDS Godhead? The “core element” of the Trinity could also be that similar, as I demonstrated. The Trinity is the belief in three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that are one God. The Son has a body of flesh and bones, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit only.
Except that Trinitarians quite clearly believe, as I have stated, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, and that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. A child of six can easily understand this, especially after reading about Jesus’ baptism.
“Personages” are also “persons”. Mormon scripture, however, prefers “personage” over “person” (see D&C 129:1; 130:22; JS-H 1:17, 18, 19, 25, 30.)
But why do you insist on obscuring the distinction between the Mormon understanding of “person” here and the Trinitarian one? Clearly the two are not the same. In Mormonism the Father and Son are two separate “persons” or “personages” in the same way that you and I are. Not so in Trinitarianism. That clearly must be the main distinction.
See above.
Fair enough. If you think that is a valid objection you can write to Elder Holland and express your views clearly to him, and see what he says. I am sure that if you write to him respectfully and express your views clearly, there is a likelihood that he may respond. There are a lot of people who want to get the personal attention of a Mormon Apostle, and they may not always be able to give every correspondence the personal attention that it deserves.
I was referring to the LDS doctrine of the Trinity, or the Godhead.
They are one in purpose. They don’t pull in different directions. They don’t have arguments, like the gods of Greek mythology do! They don’t fall out with each other like the pagan gods do. They don’t have conflicting interests. They are perfectly united in their aims, objectives, and interests.
Maybe; but the child of six will have a hard time understanding how they are “One” in Trinitarianism. The Athanasian Creed is the epitome of Trinitarian theology, and it is incomprehensible to me; and I think it would be equally incomprehensible to a child of six, or more so!
Well language fails me to describe it any better. In Mormonism they are two separate persons (or personages) in the same way that you and I are, but in Trinitarianism that is not believed to be the case. The Athanasian Creed states that:
Yes, I’m aware of that. The point was that LDS authorities also use “person”, and seem to not make the distinction between “person” and “personage” that you’re making, and I’ve never seen such a distinction made in either Trinitarian or Mormon discourse.
You aren’t demonstrating what the distinction in Trinitarianism is however. You’re saying that there is a distinction without demonstrating what it is. You say that it is “not so in Trinitarianism”, then what is the Trinitarian understanding that you are comparing to?
That’s nice, however unnecessary for me.
I know. I was asking who decided that what you wrote is the “core element” of the LDS Godhead, and then I posted what I term the “core element” of the Trinity.
Trinitarians would agree, and would further state that they are one in their divine nature, and each has eternally existed.
Except that one doesn’t need the Athanasian Creed to describe the “core elements” of Trinitarian theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the Trinity without it. If we are bringing the Athanasian Creed into the picture, that it is also necessary to bring other LDS statements and scriptures into the question, which of course need disambiguating, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Eric Shuster (a new poster here and LDS author) in his new book “The Biblical Roots of Mormonism” states on the matter-“Their divine integration of reason, intention, drive, objective, and other qualities of character and action is beyond human comprehension.” He also states “God the Father fulfills his purposes in ways that are incomprehensible to man. God’s wisdom and understanding are infinite. His goals and purposes are infinite. Human understanding cannot encompass them”. Mormons seem to not like it when Trinitarians claim that God is “incomprehensible”, yet they have their own similar views on the issue. Are you claiming that you can fully comprehend God at the moment? If not, then He is, to some degree, incomprehensible.
Are you really suggesting that there is no distinction between the two? Well I am amazed to hear it. That is all I can say.
I don’t obtain my Mormon doctrine from Eric Shuster or anybody else. I obtain it directly from the scriptures. The scriptures teach that God is comprehensible eventually. He may not be comprehensible to us now; but He can be in due course:
And Joseph Smith says that they are three Gods! Those aspects of the doctrine may require an explanation; but the essentials of it as expressed above is perfectly comprehensible by anyone.
You seem to be saying basically that there are not fundamental differences between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity and the traditional Christian on! Well if that is true, I am glad to hear it! It means that all the arguments can stop! I couldn’t ask for anything better. But methinks you will have a hard time convincing anyone else though!
In my entire life, I have never seen the proper definition, in one compact paragraph, because I never was able to zero into what the definition really was. Very hard to do when text can cover many pages.
Again, I said no such thing. I am asking you to explain what you mean by the use of “Persons” in Trinitarianism being different from the use of “Persons/Personages” in Mormonism. You state that in Mormonism the Persons are separate “in the same way that you and I are”, and that this is “not so in Trinitarianism”. So if it is “not so”, what is the situation in Trinitarianism? I am simply asking you to define the situation in Trinitarianism that you are comparing to.
I know you don’t get your doctrine from Eric Shuster. I am pointing out what another Mormon is stating about Mormon belief in contrast to what you are saying (since you’re no more authoritative than he is to me).
Exactly, the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead, in taking all of the scriptural statements on the matter, is more complex than many Mormons make it out to be, and requires a lot of explaining, especially with the aforementioned Book of Mormon verses.
Nope, I am saying no such thing. What I have asked you to do is to show what the difference is in the use of “Persons” in Trinitarianism vs. “Persons/Personages” in Mormonism. Instead of doing so, you are stating that I believe that there is no fundamental difference between the two beliefs, when I said no such thing. What you seem to be implying is that you believe that there is no real distinction between Persons in the Trinity doctrine (which is going towards Modalism). What I am stating is that the Trinity doctrine clearly is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that are not each other. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself, since Jesus is not the Father.You seem to be saying basically that there are not fundamental differences between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity and the traditional Christian on! Well if that is true, I am glad to hear it! It means that all the arguments can stop! I couldn’t ask for anything better. But methinks you will have a hard time convincing anyone else though!
I think that is a question that is most appropriate for you to answer, not me, since you have agreed that there are fundamental differences between the two. I am not really the right person to ask that question, because as I told you before, I am not interested in the false doctrine of the Trinity, which is the traditional one; but only in the true doctrine, which is the Mormon one. You are the one who seem to have delved deeply into both, and since you also have agreed that there are fundamental differences between them, then you are best placed to tell us what those differences are.
I don’t care what “another Mormon is stating about Mormon belief”. I am interested only in what the scriptures say about Mormon belief; and I have told you what that is.
Like I said, that is a question that is best answered by you, since you have delved deeply into both, and also agree that there are such differences. I am not sufficiently informed about Trinitarian theology to be able to accurately describe the differences. I am only well informed about the Mormon doctrine, which I consider to be the correct one. Since you are well studied in both, you are in an ideal position to tell us what the difference between the two are.
Yes, and that the godhead consisted of only two persons, the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost was merely their “shared mind”. Funny how the Holy Ghost suddenly turned into a spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and the 3rd personage of the godhead.
Why does the Father have a body?
For the same reasons that the Son does, and ultimately we do. If you want a theological explanation for it, it is found in the following revelation: