Trinity and Mormon godhead

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard_Abanes said:
If you were presented with any doctrines/teachings that were admittedly “incomprehensible,” then would you say, based on your previous statements, that such a doctrine would be false if it was faith-based?

If you are willing to accept certain faith-based doctrines as true (or believable/acceptable) even though they are admittedly incomprehensible, how would those doctrines be any different than the Trinity, which you seem to criticize because it is “incomprehensible”?
Click to expand...
No, something being incomprehensible means that I don’t understand it. It doesn’t make it false. Actually the term itself means “not able to be understood (by anyone)” Perhaps that is too strong a term since you allege you understand the trinity perfectly. You will be the first in 2000 years to do so, but I take you at your word.

I am waiting for you to explain the trinity to me so that I understand what you mean by it. Then it will be comprehensible and I will know whether or not the propositions describing it are verifyiable and hence, true or false.

Incomprehensibility has nothing to do with truth or falsity.

Is “noioiyhewjkanvf yh” true or false? Its truth depends on what it means!

It is a waste time to debate the truth of what is incomprehensible.

We might as well debate the truth of those letters above.

As I have said several times, ANY statement made on faith is neither true nor false. It is non-verifiable. You keep repeating the same thing.

My assertion is that the doctrine of the trinity as it has been stated here is “incomprehensible” in my opinion.

As I have also said, I will not speak of hypothetical doctrines.

You have repeated your trap, but have not changed anything you have said before.
 
Richard Abanes;4321110 said:
RA:
Click to expand...

My testimony is based on experience. Your testimony is based on your experiences. How do we determine which testimony is true, which would also indicate which experience is true. We cannot have both testimony’s/experiences true – A cannot equal Non-A.

I have answered this in my previous post. If you genuinely do not understand what I said, I will be glad to repeat it.

MFB: I am not saying there cannot be contradictory experiences which are true which verify to different people that their churches are true.

This is the answer you missed above

**RA: **Well, that’s what you SHOULD be saying or else you have just contradicted logic.

No, I haven’t. As I have said before, God can tell us where we should be at any given time in our progression.

Your "experience, which excludes my “experience,” tells you the Mormon God is true, and my God is false.

My “experience,” which excludes your “experience,” says my God is true, and your Mormon God is false.

Which is it? It can’t be both.

See above. Yes it can.

MFB: All churches have truth, and those which preach Jesus Christ have more than those which do not.

RA: I never said you church didn’t have some truth. Most religions have some truths in them. But we are talking specifics here and you are being confronted with a choice. The Mormon God vs. The Evangelical/RC God. They are two different Gods by nature.

MFB: I think He is the same God you worship, and you are free to believe what you want.

**RA: **Friend, my God is not a man in form. My God has always been God (he has not progressed). My God is not married to a Heavenly Mother. My God does not procreate eternally. My God was not organized out of cosmic intelligence by his Father and Mother God. My God exists as One Being who is Triune in nature. Friend, we have a different God. Don’t tell me what i believe. My God is NOT your God.

OK. If you think He is different, that is your opinion. It’s a free country - sort of.

MFB: You say I will be in hell. I say my father would not do that to me.

**RA: **You are assuming that you are talking about your real Father. My very contention is, painful as it is to say, you have the wrong Father to whom you are looking.

OK that is your opinion.

MFB: If you believe in the trinity as you have stated it, that is incomprehensible.

**RA: **First, it is not incomprehensible to me. I comprhend it just fine, thank you very much.

Please explain your understanding.
 
nebula said:
I find it amusing that you accuse me of obfuscation (and deceitfully so too since you also accuse me of not understanding my own statements) when talking about the trinity, but when it comes to understanding in what way propositions are true or false you take the route that veers far from the ‘common sense’ position. That’s for the record.

I think it’s obvious to most people that there is a reality out there to be discovered whether or not we are looking. If our species was decimated today the universe would continue to exist. Therefore if I say that it is raining outside, it is true or false, regardless of whether I bother to verify it or not. It is meaningless to say that the rain outside depends on me.

If you put on blue make up, you as a human being make change through time and change your state. It is true that at one time you were not blue, but at time x you put on make up and now you are blue. There is no mystery there.

Hence, propositions are true or false depending on whether or not they correlate to reality. (did I just give myself away? bring it on)
Click to expand...
Record noted.

I have no doubt that there is a world “out there” Honestly, I don’t need meds or anything to get through the day. Not even coffee 😃

You persist in not getting my point. I am sorry to yell but:

ALL WE CAN KNOW AND TALK ABOUT IS OUR EXPERIENCE

That doesn’t mean that there is nothing out there. We can only talk about what we experience and that is that.

It is the old saw “if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it does it make a sound?” This is meant to ask the question “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the vibrations, shall we call them “sound” if no one heard the sound.”

And my answer is “I don’t care!” It makes no difference to me if you call it a “sound” or not!

Is the proposition “It was a sound” true or false?

Who cares? If your religion is based on it being a sound, then I would say go ahead and accept it on faith, because you can’t prove it either way. How could you verify that it was a sound?

So you leave a recording device or something, and sure enough, there is a crashing sound recorded. Now we have something to discuss, but the problem remains. Is this a “sound” or a recording of air based vibrations?

It is all a question of how you want to define it and what your motives are. Again, if your religion depends on it being a sound, maybe it is worth arguing about maybe not.

This is common sense stuff. We just get so wrapped up in the language that we don’t know what we are talking about any more.

For Richard I will repeat my old saw: “What color is virtue” We can debate all day if it is blue or green or red, but it is all silly because virtue does not have color

BECAUSE WE CAN STRING SOME WORDS TOGETHER DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE QUESTION HAS AN INTELLIGIBLE ANSWER.

Nah I’m not going to give you a hard time about the correspondence theory of truth.

It’s a free country. It’s old, but so am I .😉 I like to drive my old Ghia occasionally too, but it’s a pain to shift all those gears. At every stop sign and light.

If you want to oil up the gears in the correspondence theory and make sure the steam boiler has enough pressure to run, be my guest.

Just let me cruise past in my nice new Mercedes. 😉
 
mfbukowski said:
Record noted.

I have no doubt that there is a world “out there” Honestly, I don’t need meds or anything to get through the day. Not even coffee 😃

You persist in not getting my point. I am sorry to yell but:

ALL WE CAN KNOW AND TALK ABOUT IS OUR EXPERIENCE

That doesn’t mean that there is nothing out there. We can only talk about what we experience and that is that.

It is the old saw “if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it does it make a sound?” This is meant to ask the question “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the vibrations, shall we call them “sound” if no one heard the sound.”

And my answer is “I don’t care!” It makes no difference to me if you call it a “sound” or not!

Is the proposition “It was a sound” true or false?

Who cares? If your religion is based on it being a sound, then I would say go ahead and accept it on faith, because you can’t prove it either way. How could you verify that it was a sound?

So you leave a recording device or something, and sure enough, there is a crashing sound recorded. Now we have something to discuss, but the problem remains. Is this a “sound” or a recording of air based vibrations?

It is all a question of how you want to define it and what your motives are. Again, if your religion depends on it being a sound, maybe it is worth arguing about maybe not.

This is common sense stuff. We just get so wrapped up in the language that we don’t know what we are talking about any more.

For Richard I will repeat my old saw: “What color is virtue” We can debate all day if it is blue or green or red, but it is all silly because virtue does not have color

BECAUSE WE CAN STRING SOME WORDS TOGETHER DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE QUESTION HAS AN INTELLIGIBLE ANSWER.

Nah I’m not going to give you a hard time about the correspondence theory of truth.

It’s a free country. It’s old, but so am I .😉 I like to drive my old Ghia occasionally too, but it’s a pain to shift all those gears. At every stop sign and light.

If you want to oil up the gears in the correspondence theory and make sure the steam boiler has enough pressure to run, be my guest.

Just let me cruise past in my nice new Mercedes. 😉
Click to expand...
Sure, if you string together the words “color is virtue” it’s merely a meaningless proposition. Is your faith literally meaningless? Is that what you are trying to say?
 
nebula said:
Sure, if you string together the words “color is virtue” it’s merely a meaningless proposition. Is your faith literally meaningless? Is that what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...
So tell me what you mean by “two whos and one what?”
 
**MFB: **… you allege you understand the trinity perfectly. You will be the first in 2000 years to do so, but I take you at your word.

RA: I’m not the first. Countless Christians haev understood it just fine for hundreds and hundreds of years. iw ould venture to say countless persons on this board understand it. And certainly the “Ask An Apologist” peeps understand it. And I personally know quite a few people who understabnd it just fine. I would ask thatyou again re-read my post wherein I explain that we Christians understand WHAT it is, but simply have not had it revealed to us HOW (i.e., the logistics of it from our human, finite, limited perspectives) such life form CAN exist in all its spendour, majesty, glory, and miraculous nature.

But the Bible is very clear.
  1. We have an absolute ONE TRUE God noted in scripture.
  2. We have three distinct Persons (centers of Consciousness) noted in scripture.
  3. We have each of these Persons (centers of Consciousness) called God and shown to share the same attriibutes/essence.
The orthodox, Christian Trinity is the ONLY path that can walk all of these verses without doing violence to any of them. Mormonism, on the other hand, mis-interprets away the significance of the unity verses, in order to come up with their polytheism. And polythieism contradicts not only the teachings of ancient Israel, but also plain passages in both the Old and New Testaments.

As for a fuller explanation from numerous angles, including interactions with, and refutations of, classic LDS arguments, I would ask that you go to a library and read “INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM,” which discusses this very issue in GREAT detail and depth. Otherwise, I fear that I’ll have repost page after page of my book — which I don’t think will make my publisher very happy. ROFL! :cool:
MFB: As I have also said, I will not speak of hypothetical doctrines…

RA: Fine. Let me ask it this way. And, TBH, if you’re not going to be intellectually honest about this and engage in dialog, then there is no dialog:
  1. “IS A DOCTRINE FALSE IF IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE?”
That is a very, very, very simple question.
  1. “IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE FALSE BECAUSE IT IS INCOMPRHENSIBLE TO YOU?”
That is a very, very, very simple question.

And I’m not setting a trap – you have to deal with your own faith, which includes, by the words of your own leaders, incomprehensible doctrines. Now, deal with it, or don’t deal with it. But don’t say you’re wanting to talk/discuss when you won’t face your own faith.

Moreover, the Trinity, as a doctrine, although admittedly difficult, is comprehended by a vast number of people – alive and long-since gone.

RA
 
mfbukowski said:
So tell me what you mean by “two whos and one what?”
Click to expand...
mf,

That should be understood as metaphorical speech to try to illuminate a difficult concept. But I think you know that and are willfully misreading it because you’ve simply decided it makes no sense and that is that. That is why I responded the way I did to you. Are we going to have an exchange now?

If so I’ll give your post more than a two second thought if you’ll give me the same courtesy.

Well we’ve been over this ground. You’re denying the role of any a priori thinking which I argue is completely fallacious because the only way you come to the concept of a concept to begin with is through a priori concepts integrated with a posteriori ones.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
**MFB: **… you allege you understand the trinity perfectly. You will be the first in 2000 years to do so, but I take you at your word.

RA: I’m not the first. Countless Christians haev understood it just fine for hundreds and hundreds of years. iw ould venture to say countless persons on this board understand it. And certainly the “Ask An Apologist” peeps understand it. And I personally know quite a few people who understabnd it just fine. I would ask thatyou again re-read my post wherein I explain that we Christians understand WHAT it is, but simply have not had it revealed to us HOW (i.e., the logistics of it from our human, finite, limited perspectives) such life form CAN exist in all its spendour, majesty, glory, and miraculous nature.

But the Bible is very clear.
  1. We have an absolute ONE TRUE God noted in scripture.
  2. We have three distinct Persons (centers of Consciousness) noted in scripture.
  3. We have each of these Persons (centers of Consciousness) called God and shown to share the same attriibutes/essence.
The orthodox, Christian Trinity is the ONLY path that can walk all of these verses without doing violence to any of them. Mormonism, on the other hand, mis-interprets away the significance of the unity verses, in order to come up with their polytheism. And polythieism contradicts not only the teachings of ancient Israel, but also plain passages in both the Old and New Testaments.

As for a fuller explanation from numerous angles, including interactions with, and refutations of, classic LDS arguments, I would ask that you go to a library and read “INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM,” which discusses this very issue in GREAT detail and depth. Otherwise, I fear that I’ll have repost page after page of my book — which I don’t think will make my publisher very happy. ROFL! :cool:
MFB: As I have also said, I will not speak of hypothetical doctrines…

RA: Fine. Let me ask it this way. And, TBH, if you’re not going to be intellectually honest about this and engage in dialog, then there is no dialog:
  1. “IS A DOCTRINE FALSE IF IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE?”
That is a very, very, very simple question.
  1. “IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE FALSE BECAUSE IT IS INCOMPRHENSIBLE TO YOU?”
That is a very, very, very simple question.

And I’m not setting a trap – you have to deal with your own faith, which includes, by the words of your own leaders, incomprehensible doctrines. Now, deal with it, or don’t deal with it. But don’t say you’re wanting to talk/discuss when you won’t face your own faith.

Moreover, the Trinity, as a doctrine, although admittedly difficult, is comprehended by a vast number of people – alive and long-since gone.

RA
Click to expand...
Richard.
I have answered this question at least three times and the answer is no.

Are you even reading my posts?
If you are not, why are we wasting the time? It is you who are not engaging in dialogue.

THE ANSWER IS NO. INCOMPREHENSIBILITY DOES NOT RENDER ANYTHING FALSE.

How can consciousness be “centered” if they are non- spatial?

How can there be 3 centers if they are not spatial? How would you know where one center ends and the other begins?
I do not believe any LDS doctrines are incomprehensible.

Henceforth, I will keep my replies very short and make separate posts for each so you see them.
 
Here’s my understanding of the Trinity:
  • One God
  • Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
  • Each Person is God: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God
  • Each Person is In Each Other: The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son
  • One God, each Person is God, each Person is in Each Other - hence, being in Each Other, Each God, and there being only one God, there is simpleness, oneness, one God
 
Nickkname said:
Here’s my understanding of the Trinity:
  • One God
  • Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
  • Each Person is God: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God
  • Each Person is In Each Other: The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son
  • One God, each Person is God, each Person is in Each Other - hence, being in Each Other, Each God, and there being only one God, there is simplicity, oneness, triunity, One God
Click to expand...
How are they “in” one another if they are not spatial? Inside of one another?
 
MFB: How are they “in” one another if they are not spatial? Inside of one another?

RA: Did you not read my time analogy? Time is interwoven in such a way as to be: three and yet one, one and yet three. I am assuming that “in” is being used in a metaphorical abstract way to describe one-ness of essence and interconnected-ness.

I think, possibly, that you might be trying to make God into a man like us – which is your LDS teachings bleeding through and trying to make the non-Mormon Trinity fit into an LDS rigid mold of thought. :confused:

**MFB: **INCOMPREHENSIBILITY DOES NOT RENDER ANYTHING FALSE.

RA: Fine. Than even if the Trinity were “incomprehensible,” which it is not, then that in itself would not render it untrue. Thank you. So, even if the Trinity still remains incomprehensible to you, you could still effectively accept it. Thank you.
**
MFB:** I do not believe any LDS doctrines are incomprehensible.

RA: Would you like a list, as stated by your own LDS leaders?

R.A.
 
nebula said:
mf,

That should be understood as metaphorical speech to try to illuminate a difficult concept. But I think you know that and are willfully misreading it because you’ve simply decided it makes no sense and that is that. That is why I responded the way I did to you. Are we going to have an exchange now?

If so I’ll give your post more than a two second thought if you’ll give me the same courtesy.

Well we’ve been over this ground. You’re denying the role of any a priori thinking which I argue is completely fallacious because the only way you come to the concept of a concept to begin with is through a priori concepts integrated with a posteriori ones.
Click to expand...
Ok you are partially right, and I stand corrected. I would disagree with “the only way you come to the confept of a concept” is due to the a priori. Not sure what that means.

A priori propositions are true independent of experience.

They tend to be good tools, but not very interesting. Mathmatics and symbolic logic – geometry–

They work very well in dealing with the world. 👍
 
Richard_Abanes said:
MFB: How are they “in” one another if they are not spatial? Inside of one another?

RA: Did you not read my time analogy? Time is interwoven in such a way as to be: three and yet one, one and yet three. I am assuming that “in” is being used in a metaphorical abstract way to describe one-ness of essence and interconnected-ness.

I think, possibly, that you might be trying to make God into a man like us – which is your LDS teachings bleeding through and trying to make the non-Mormon Trinity fit into an LDS rigid mold of thought. :confused:

**MFB: **INCOMPREHENSIBILITY DOES NOT RENDER ANYTHING FALSE.

RA: Fine. Than even if the Trinity were “incomprehensible,” which it is not, then that in itself would not render it untrue. Thank you. So, even if the Trinity still remains incomprehensible to you, you could still effectively accept it. Thank you.
**
MFB:** I do not believe any LDS doctrines are incomprehensible.

RA: Would you like a list, as stated by your own LDS leaders?

R.A.
Click to expand...
I have no problems with metaphors as long as we don’t say they are “true”. I guess a true metaphor would be one which explains its subject.

I would not accept the trinity as “true” if I could not understand it.

What I said was that incomprehensibility does not render something false.

It doesn’t render it true either.

AS I said before. incomprehensibility just means “not understandable”. You have to understand something before you can decide it is true.

I do not believe any LDS doctrines are incomprehensible. I have to accept some on faith, but that does not make them incomprehensible. Do you understand the difference, or should we discuss it further?

I have some church assignments to take care of so I may not get back to you until tomorrow AM

I really feel I am repeating a lot here.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
**MFB: **…
Moreover, the Trinity, as a doctrine, although admittedly difficult, is comprehended by a vast number of people – alive and long-since gone.

RA
Click to expand...
Some people distinguish between “apprehend” and “comprehend.” We can apprehend God, can apprehend the trinity, but cannot comprehend them.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
I think, possibly, that you might be trying to make God into a man like us – which is your LDS teachings bleeding through and trying to make the non-Mormon Trinity fit into an LDS rigid mold of thought. :confused:
Click to expand...
No, the LDS doctrine was the only way the “trinity” was comprehensible to me. I believed all my philosophical principles before I joined the church

Yes, God is a man like us in certain respects. Yet he is infinitely above us in every way.
 
**MFB: **the LDS doctrine was the only way the “trinity” was comprehensible to me.

**RA: **But it doesn’t matter if it is comprehensible or not – if it contradicts something clearly laid out in the Bible. And that, it does. In fact, the Mormon doctrine of deity is but one example of numerous LDS teachings that conflict radically with scripture. So, we actually have many problems. Something being easy to understand, does not make it a true proposition when evidence suggests otherwise.

And you say that you find no LDS doctrines “incomprehensible,” but that conflicts with your own leaders who say that various LDS doctrines are indeed “incomprehensible.” So, perhaps you might understand them, but the very men you look to as spiritual leaders see them as “incomprehensible,” so why are they leading you?

R.A.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
**MFB: **the LDS doctrine was the only way the “trinity” was comprehensible to me.

**RA: **But it doesn’t matter if it is comprehensible or not – if it contradicts something clearly laid out in the Bible. And that, it does. In fact, the Mormon doctrine of deity is but one example of numerous LDS teachings that conflict radically with scripture. So, we actually have many problems. Something being easy to understand, does not make it a true proposition when evidence suggests otherwise.

R.A.
Click to expand...
We posted these last two at virtually the same time. Check the biblical references in the article.

Further, check earlier in this thread for posts by BDawg regarding early christian beliefs in an anthropomorphic God.

He is far more expert than me in those areas.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
**MFB: **the LDS doctrine was the only way the “trinity” was comprehensible to me.

**RA: **But it doesn’t matter if it is comprehensible or not – if it contradicts something clearly laid out in the Bible. And that, it does. In fact, the Mormon doctrine of deity is but one example of numerous LDS teachings that conflict radically with scripture. So, we actually have many problems. Something being easy to understand, does not make it a true proposition when evidence suggests otherwise.

And you say that you find no LDS doctrines “incomprehensible,” but that conflicts with your own leaders who say that various LDS doctrines are indeed “incomprehensible.” So, perhaps you might understand them, but the very men you look to as spiritual leaders see them as “incomprehensible,” so why are they leading you?

R.A.
Click to expand...
Give me an example of an incomprehensible doctrine. Quit beating around the bush. I am trained in philosophy and they are not. They are spirtual giants and I am a dwarf. But I understand how language and logic work.

I am a mechanic. They drive the car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top