Trinity and Mormon godhead

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulDupre said:
No, a dog is a being (a living creature), but is not a person.

I will never understand why Mormons can’t get their heads around this concept.
Click to expand...
Paul I don’t know. I’m beginning to think that because MOrmons in the back of their minds believe the trinity is nonsense and some made up fabrication from those nasty greeks they don’t really try to understand it. I don’t think they mean for this to happen, but since that is where they are coming from it really gives them blinders. How else do you explain the total inability (unwillingness?) to understand basic distinctions?
 
**T: **It would seem that being away from good LDS to have discussions with has lead you to be able to say things like “Mormonism would still be a load of …… uhm.”

**RA: **That was actually my attempt at humor. I thought we;d been through enough in the past to jab you a bit. I actually thoght you might tihnk it amusing and a reminder of the good old days.

T: BTW, are you acknowledging (by changing the subject) that you have no way to define the Trinity against Mormonism that does not involve internal contradictions?

RA: I never said that. But just I choose to not persist in a never-ending circle of…stuff.

T: The problem IMO is that you are more than willing to focus a critical eye on the origins of Mormonism and ignore similar problems in your own faith tradition.

RA: I know. I disagree.

T: I find it easier to acknowledge the historical issues you bring up (with surely some increased context) and accept the BOM as from God than I would to attempt to explain the BOM through different means.

RA: Clearly. Okay, then.

T: Richard, I cannot remember, do you adopt “the devil did it” theory of BOM and Mormon origins?

**RA: **NO. The “Joseph Smith = author” theory. Pretty obivous if you ask me.

RAbanes
 
nebula said:
Paul I don’t know. I’m beginning to think that because MOrmons in the back of their minds believe the trinity is nonsense and some made up fabrication from those nasty greeks they don’t really try to understand it. I don’t think they mean for this to happen, but since that is where they are coming from it really gives them blinders. How else do you explain the total inability (unwillingness?) to understand basic distinctions?
Click to expand...
Nebula,
And, I am not an exMormon, but a current LDS. I believe BDawg in response to you had much of importance to say. I am however not comfortable with the idea that God is “relatively infinite” (and I doubt he was either).
I went back and read your post. What do you think of the below propositions:
  1. God the Father is God.
  2. God the Son is God.
  3. God the Father is not identical to God the Son
  4. There is one God.
Now, if the definition of “is” and the definition of “God” are absolutely consistent through the above a contradiction can be defined.

Do you deny any of 1-4?
Do you believe that 1-4 do not involve a logical contradiction?

What you have done is change the word God in 1,2, and 4.
  1. God the Father is one person.
  2. God the Son is one person.
  3. There is one being who is God.
Introducing the words person and being into the above CAN remove the contradiction, but only at the cost of introducing a concept that is incomprehensible (how is one being three persons)? Infinity is a tricky thing, but it does not make a multi-personed being a whole lot better. HOWEVER, I would suggest there is something to the idea that this incomprehensibleness is not a logical contradiction. No longer can you break 1-4 into “one is two” or “one is not one.” What you have done is say that God is three in one way and God is one in another way. This is precisely what Social Trinitarians do.

Now, if we added in a #5 and said the meaning of the term God is absolutely the same when speaking of an individual person, (like “God the Father is unbegotten and non-proceeding”) and when speaking of the unity of God (like “God is one.”) then I do not think the Social Trinity position works and I do not think your persons/beings works either. In general, I reject #5 and acknowledge that the Bible gives some reason to postulate that God is not one in PRECISELY the same way that God the Father is God. In my experience few non-LDS are willing to reject #5 (at least while trying to declare that I am a heritic).

Charity, TOm
 
**nebula: **… they don’t really try to understand it.

RA: Well, said. There are many many many quotes to be found wherein the trinity is utterly mis-stated and mangled. And they they say, *“See, isn’t that foolish.” * Afterward, they proceed to say “God is a man in form and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves.”

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
**T: **
Click to expand...
It would seem that being away from good LDS to have discussions with has lead you to be able to say things like “Mormonism would still be a load of …… uhm.”

**RA: **That was actually my attempt at humor. I thought we;d been through enough in the past to jab you a bit. I actually thoght you might tihnk it amusing and a reminder of the good old days.
I remember apologizing to you once before. I was thinking that I was responding in a way that would not result in me feeling like apologizing, but it appears I am wrong.
I do not think it particularly conducive to discussion to say things like that, but I should recognize that for me this is perhaps more serious and you are probably not interested in going over old discussions. I can imagine that you were joking and I apologize for making a deal about it.

I have not taken a break from these questions since we last spoke. I think there are plenty of reasons to not be a LDS and plenty of reasons to not be a Catholic and plenty of reasons to not be a Protestant. My summation of all this comes out radically different than does your AND fairly different than does the faithful informed Catholics.

I genuinely hope that regardless of who has added their figures more correctly, collected the proper data, and … that God’s grace is sufficient for the other one (not to mention for the one more correct). I can confidently say that I think His grace is up to the task.

Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
Mfbukowski,
Let me offer some of my thoughts. There is one place the I think our Catholic friends might get quite concerned, so hopefully I can mitigate that a little.

The Council of Nicea IMO had a difficult problem. God created ex Nihilo and before this there was only God. Jesus spoke to His Father. So was Jesus created by God out of nothing? Was Jesus really the Father (this was condemned long before and interestingly enough the heretical word condemned with the Sabellian heresy was “homoousian!”)

Well, most of the Bishops at Nicea embraced a view of the Nicene word “homoousian” that would fall out of favor later. Eusebius (the historian Bishop who signed at Nicea not the other one) sent a letter to his church that said that Nicea decided that God the Father and God the Son where homoousian just like a human father and a human son are homoousian. When dialoguing with Richard many years ago, I called this “me-you-one-substance-ness.” I think a LDS can very easily embrace Nicea with this understanding of “homoousian.” We reject some of the underlying ideas that made this such a big deal, but this “homoousian” is quite fine.
Athanasius embraced Eusebius and those who thought like him as his brothers in Christ. Unfortunately as Athanasius and then Augustine more precisely addressed these issues “homoousian” shifted in meaning (though there are remnants of the older meaning in dogmatic Catholic pronouncement much after Nicea too). Today folks here usually insist upon a meaning that I call “me-me-one-substance-ness.” There is much that becomes incomprehensible when attempting to assert this definition of homoousian.

So, IMO, there are non-negotiables in the Catholic faith that produce contradictions. Folks like Richard (who is not Catholic!!!) seem to embrace these non-negotiables when he pursues condemning LDS theology.

This is what I think our Catholic friends might object to.
Constantine called the Council of Nicea. Constantine is one of a few folks that historians can reasonably claim RULED at the Council of Nicea. Constantine certainly had a part in embracing and promulgating the Nicene definition. However, I do not believe Constantine really cared which definition was produced, only that there was political unity within the church. I believe his motives were far more political than theological. Constantine was not even a Christian (he was unbaptized) during the council.
So, I think Nicea was the best decision a group of Bishops who passionately wanted to do right by God chose.
With the assumptions they all embraced, I do not know if they could have done better.

This is why I so no path to Protestantism for me. They accepted the decision of Catholic authorities who claimed they could decide because they were Catholic authorities while rejecting the authority of said Catholics. They followed Catholics through doctrinal developments that were not MERELY Biblical definitions, while denying that doctrinal development could be validly carried on by Catholic authorities.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Richard and I achieved some common ground long ago as I took advantage of the inability to define “being” and offered a “me-me-one-substance-ness” aspect of the LDS Godhead. It exists if the word “being” is unmoored from its more normal English connotations. This is perhaps not unwarranted either since clearly three persons in one being is not something that has human connotations.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification, and I think we are pretty much in agreement.

When you get a chance, I would like to hear a clarification of what you mean by “me-me-one-substance-ness”

I am curious why you feel the need to pursue a definition other than the classical LDS; the road to compromise terminologically with Creedal christians is something I struggle with, but lately I have kind of given up trying to define myself in their terms

Yes, I am aware of Richard’s background.

He still refuses to answer my question about how he knows the bible is inspired and inerrant, or to use the Mormon term, “true”.
 
Yeah, Tom, I was just being waaaaayyyy lighter about it all. Sorry if I was more flip than you expected. And hey, np.

RA 🙂
 
TOmNossor said:
Nebula,
And, I am not an exMormon, but a current LDS. I believe BDawg in response to you had much of importance to say. I am however not comfortable with the idea that God is “relatively infinite” (and I doubt he was either).
I went back and read your post. What do you think of the below propositions:
  1. God the Father is God.
  2. God the Son is God.
  3. God the Father is not identical to God the Son
  4. There is one God.
Now, if the definition of “is” and the definition of “God” are absolutely consistent through the above a contradiction can be defined.

Do you deny any of 1-4?
Do you believe that 1-4 do not involve a logical contradiction?

What you have done is change the word God in 1,2, and 4.
  1. God the Father is one person.
  2. God the Son is one person.
  3. There is one being who is God.
Introducing the words person and being into the above CAN remove the contradiction, but only at the cost of introducing a concept that is incomprehensible (how is one being three persons)? Infinity is a tricky thing, but it does not make a multi-personed being a whole lot better. HOWEVER, I would suggest there is something to the idea that this incomprehensibleness is not a logical contradiction. No longer can you break 1-4 into “one is two” or “one is not one.” What you have done is say that God is three in one way and God is one in another way. This is precisely what Social Trinitarians do.

Now, if we added in a #5 and said the meaning of the term God is absolutely the same when speaking of an individual person, (like “God the Father is unbegotten and non-proceeding”) and when speaking of the unity of God (like “God is one.”) then I do not think the Social Trinity position works and I do not think your persons/beings works either. In general, I reject #5 and acknowledge that the Bible gives some reason to postulate that God is not one in PRECISELY the same way that God the Father is God. In my experience few non-LDS are willing to reject #5 (at least while trying to declare that I am a heritic).

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Tom,

It’s not incomprehensible. That’s what my opening post was all about. There are areas that are mysteries, but there are undeniable mysteries associated with existence at all (i.e. what does it mean to have identity?).

Multiplying the existence of God does nothing to help the situation. It complicates it and denies the absolute infinity of God, that absolute infinity requiring that there be absolute unity in the Being who possesses it.

I’d be more careful about impinging upon God’s ultimate glory.
 
nebula said:
Tom,

It’s not incomprehensible. That’s what my opening post was all about. There are areas that are mysteries, but there are undeniable mysteries associated with existence at all (i.e. what does it mean to have identity?).

Multiplying the existence of God does nothing to help the situation. It complicates it and denies the absolute infinity of God, that absolute infinity requiring that there be absolute unity in the Being who possesses it.

I’d be more careful about impinging upon God’s ultimate glory.
Click to expand...
You know I imagine you sitting in a cafe in Paris with a beret smoking Gauloises and drinking wine and madly writing in a notebook contemplating the mysteries of existence.

What does it mean to have identity?

Come on. Do you really have a problem with that?

You know I have to rattle your cage occasionally 😉
 
mfbukowski said:
You know I imagine you sitting in a cafe in Paris with a beret smoking Gauloises and drinking wine and madly writing in a notebook contemplating the mysteries of existence.

What does it mean to have identity?

Come on. Do you really have a problem with that?

You know I have to rattle your cage occasionally 😉
Click to expand...
It’s a genuinely strange thing. Darned right I have a ‘problem’ with it-- it’s questions like that which humbled me and allowed belief in God to take root. Are you seriously saying you’ve never been utterly and absolutely floored by a hubble deep space photograph? YOu’ve never seen those thousands of clusters of galaxies and thought “My God, how and why does any of this exist, what’s my place, my small speck of a self in all of this-- what does it mean that I can even ask these questions…?” Please tell me you have (or some variant, obviously). This is what it means to be human, htis is what sets us apart from being mere animals.

And if you truly have not and do not experience this, what business do you have ‘buying’ a religion? Might as well join Dawkins and his crew.
 
nebula said:
It’s a genuinely strange thing. Darned right I have a ‘problem’ with it-- it’s questions like that which humbled me and allowed belief in God to take root. Are you seriously saying you’ve never been utterly and absolutely floored by a hubble deep space photograph? YOu’ve never seen those thousands of clusters of galaxies and thought “My God, how and why does any of this exist, what’s my place, my small speck of a self in all of this-- what does it mean that I can even ask these questions…?” Please tell me you have (or some variant, obviously). This is what it means to be human, htis is what sets us apart from being mere animals.

And if you truly have not and do not experience this, what business do you have ‘buying’ a religion? Might as well join Dawkins and his crew.
Click to expand...
Of course I feel/felt that way.

But after years and years of debate and searching, I really feel like I get it and all the questions are gone

But the awe and wonder is still there – it just makes sense to me now.

I don’t need it to be mysterious to be awesome or beautiful
 
nebula said:
Tom,

It’s not incomprehensible. That’s what my opening post was all about. There are areas that are mysteries, but there are undeniable mysteries associated with existence at all (i.e. what does it mean to have identity?).

Multiplying the existence of God does nothing to help the situation. It complicates it and denies the absolute infinity of God, that absolute infinity requiring that there be absolute unity in the Being who possesses it.

I’d be more careful about impinging upon God’s ultimate glory.
Click to expand...
Nebula,
My study of philosophy is primarily so that I might be able to understand theological concepts and ideas.
I am of the opinion that I rather directly addressed your point from your original post.
The problem is not that God is one being in three persons AND we do not perfectly understand what “being” and “person” mean in this statement. The problem is that most critics of the CoJCoLDS insist on:
  1. God the Father is God.
  2. God the Son is God.
  3. God the Father is not identical to God the Son
  4. There is one God.
And on:
5. “God” when it refers to an individual person (“The Son is God”) means the same thing as “God” when it refers to the Trinity (“God is one.”).

Your “being” vs. “person” explanation only works if you deny #5.

I deny #5. In fact, I think “God” in scripture/theological dialogue has three meanings (two of which I mentioned in the previous post, but to be more thorough).
  • “God” refers to divinity. For example “Jesus Chris is God” or in some instances “The Father is God.”
  • “God” refers to the Father alone. Some of the “God is one” statements in the Bible and the ECF likely refer to the Father alone.
  • Finally, “God” refers to the divine communion of those who are “God” via the first meaning in this list. Some of the “God is one” statements in the Bible and the ECF like refer to this Trinity (and in some instances one in Irenaeus off the top of my head “God” refers to the Trinity joined to those who are deified).
So, Nebula, what are your thoughts on #5? If you embrace #5 do you see how that eviscerates any benefit realized from your “being” vs. “persons” dichotomy? I do not think this question is more complex or esoteric than “what is identity?” (in fact I think it less so).

BTW, I have not offered anything that impinges upon God’s ultimate glory. I specifically suggested that your idea of “relative infinity” which you imposed upon LDS thought was something that I thought should be rejected. Truth be told, I find some of the doctrines designed to protect “God’s ultimate glory” to degrade it instead, but nothing we have discussed yet has much to do with this.

Charity, TOm
 
nebula said:
Right, I was meaning to communicate to Mormons that the trinity isn’t nonsense, that it makes sense on many levels and can shown to be reasonable. Many Mormons assume the whole thing is a complete contradiction and total nonsense but that’s only because they haven’t tried to understand what it really says.
Click to expand...
How do you marry your above answer to your bellow one to me ?
ronald,
Click to expand...
Considering that I am unsure about whether or not I will accept Jesus as God how can you expect me to answer those questions? All that I can do is hypothetically answer your concerns as if I believed in the incarnation but I don’t see the point.
Click to expand...
 
TOmNossor said:
Nebula,
My study of philosophy is primarily so that I might be able to understand theological concepts and ideas.
I am of the opinion that I rather directly addressed your point from your original post.
The problem is not that God is one being in three persons AND we do not perfectly understand what “being” and “person” mean in this statement. The problem is that most critics of the CoJCoLDS insist on:
  1. God the Father is God.
  2. God the Son is God.
  3. God the Father is not identical to God the Son
  4. There is one God.
And on:
5. “God” when it refers to an individual person (“The Son is God”) means the same thing as “God” when it refers to the Trinity (“God is one.”).

Your “being” vs. “person” explanation only works if you deny #5.

I deny #5. In fact, I think “God” in scripture/theological dialogue has three meanings (two of which I mentioned in the previous post, but to be more thorough).
  • “God” refers to divinity. For example “Jesus Chris is God” or in some instances “The Father is God.”
  • “God” refers to the Father alone. Some of the “God is one” statements in the Bible and the ECF likely refer to the Father alone.
  • Finally, “God” refers to the divine communion of those who are “God” via the first meaning in this list. Some of the “God is one” statements in the Bible and the ECF like refer to this Trinity (and in some instances one in Irenaeus off the top of my head “God” refers to the Trinity joined to those who are deified).
So, Nebula, what are your thoughts on #5? If you embrace #5 do you see how that eviscerates any benefit realized from your “being” vs. “persons” dichotomy? I do not think this question is more complex or esoteric than “what is identity?” (in fact I think it less so).

BTW, I have not offered anything that impinges upon God’s ultimate glory. I specifically suggested that your idea of “relative infinity” which you imposed upon LDS thought was something that I thought should be rejected. Truth be told, I find some of the doctrines designed to protect “God’s ultimate glory” to degrade it instead, but nothing we have discussed yet has much to do with this.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Tom,
I think you have defined the problem well.

I would put it differently, that there is an ambiguity with the word “God” which would include the meanings you have cited.

This linguistic ambiguity causes confusion when we think about the concepts.

From this point, we have two choices.
  1. -When we talk about “God” we need to be very clear about which meaning of the term we are using so we don’t confuse the three terms.
2)- We can follow the course that theology in the west has previously used, which is posulating the existence of some “unifying concept” which actually “makes” the three meanings one meaning. (like “substance”, “being”, or “love”)

#2- has traditionally enabled us to speak of “One God” even though we are talking about 3 persons. “There is one God because the three persons are one in being” etc. It is my belief that the entire doctrine of the trinity is based on this approach to the ambiguity problem.

My question at this point is, is there a need to postulate the existence of such a unifying factor? (The Trinity) As opposed to simply being careful about the ambiguity?

I have often mentioned on these boards what is logically sometimes termed “category mistakes”

In philosophy a category mistake would be asking a question like “what color is virtue”? Well, just because we can ask the question doesn’t mean that virtue actually has a color.

We can mis-use language to create all sorts of non-problems, and then endlessly argue about those non-problems.

"But if we do away with the trinity being defined as “one God” we would be polytheists! "

If that is the truth, so be it!

I guess the question from my perspective is, why do we need to postulate that three persons are somehow “one”, other than no one wants to admit that we have been polytheists for 2000 years?

I see it as a case of “the emperor has no clothes”

Everyone sees it, but no one will admit it.

The LDS position is really no different, but we use the term “Godhead” which is just as ambiguous as “trinity”, and we use it for the same purpose, to somehow make the three into one.
 
TOmNossor said:
The Council of Nicea IMO had a difficult problem. God created ex Nihilo and before this there was only God. Jesus spoke to His Father. So was Jesus created by God out of nothing? Was Jesus really the Father (this was condemned long before and interestingly enough the heretical word condemned with the Sabellian heresy was “homoousian!”)Well, most of the Bishops at Nicea embraced a view of the Nicene word “homoousian” that would fall out of favor later.
Click to expand...
When (which Council/Synod) was homoousian condemned?
When did the Nicean view of the homoousian fall out of favor?
 
MFBukowski,
I like this passage from some of the opening words of Ostler’s first volume Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God:
Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.
Click to expand...
In general, I sympathize with what you say. I do not think the parsing of philosophic language is necessary for a faith commitment.
That being said, among the few folks who provide real arguments against our faith, this language is important. Some arguments are not worth addressing, but those that are in some instances require concepts not necessarily part of the average LDS flight with God. While R.C. Sproul a brilliant Reformed theologian can say that the most important message of Christianity as a whole is, “Jesus loves me this I know because the Bible tells me so!” such is not of much value in interfaith dialogue/debate. Everyone agrees with this and still we disagree with great passion (and most non-LDS here suggest that are disagreements will result in LDS not partaking of divine life with God, there are LDS who say this about Catholics and others too so this is not just a one sided thing).

Now, I think there is so much in the Bible, the BOM, and the D&C that says God is one that we must have some thoughts on what this means. In my mind the First Presidency is one in a way quite inferior to the oneness of God.
I have however argued that modern Jews (not ancient Jews BTW) and Moslems can rightly call ALL Christians polytheists AND that this derisive statement is more reasonably applied by Jews/Moslem to Christians than is it applied by non-LDS Christians to LDS Christians. No Christian is an absolute monotheist. Not even Aquinas who IMO emphasized “divine simplicity” and came the closest of all Catholic theologian nor the Cappadocian Fathers who at the other end of the spectrum spoke with many Social Trinity overtones.

Charity, TOm
 
Stephen168 said:
When (which Council/Synod) was homoousian condemned?
When did the Nicean view of the homoousian fall out of favor?
Click to expand...
I will need to consult Apostasy of the Divine Church to be sure, but I think it was part of the condemnation of Sabellius in 260AD at a Synod held in Rome and called by Pope St. Dionysius.
I would be surprised to discover that this is not the case, but I will need to check later.
What is CERTAINLY true is that the word homoousian was condemned as part of the Sabellian heresy.

Now concerning the meaning of homoousian after Nicea, I do not have a timeframe for you. As I see the evidence, Athanasius was ALWAYS using homoousian in what may be called a neo-modalist way. Augustine generally did as well. The Council of Chalcedon does not use it this way. Eusebius did not use it this way and he represented the majority position at Nicea (which was in the middle between a good collection of Athanasius supporters and a tiny minority of Arius supporters).

Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top