The Trinity

[Scott1]

Oh, sorry. The trinity, as I understand it, has the father, son, and holy ghost being one in stubstance, being one being. We have the father being one being, the son as another being, and the holy ghost as a third being.

Ummm, so do we.
The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire.(CCC#253)

These three aren't united, except in purpose.

This is close to our definition....

The Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone, whereas the holy ghost is just a spirit.

Flesh and bone god? Ok... we'll have to disagree on that.

I think the trinity has just one spirit-y thing, with three "factes"? We have 3 seperate things.

We have three seperate "things" .... but they are all divine... they are all of the same essense or nature, and thus one.

I think we're close... thanks again for trying to explain this to me... it's my least knowledgable topic.

 

[Scott1]

(When you say "Trinity," I'm using the term as it is defined by the creeds. And I don't find the Nicene Creed to be as troublesome as the Athanasian Creed. In other words, will do believe in a trinity of sorts -- just not "The Trinity".)

Hopefully, my answer to Aqua will help us clarify the discussion.... I do believe you may not understand what we teach as the "Trinity".... be patient with me.

 

[Katzpur]

Ooooo...I'm on his ignore list. And I've been trying to be more respectful lately, too.

You sound kind of pleased. I know I'd feel pretty bad getting put on someone's ignore list.

 

[Aqualung]

Ummm, so do we.
The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire.(CCC#253)
This is close to our definition....

Well, then, I guess I don't know what exactly the trinity is...

We have three seperate "things" .... but they are all divine... they are all of the same essense or nature, and thus one.

See, this is what I don't get. the same essense or nature thing-y.

I think we're close... thanks again for trying to explain this to me... it's my least knowledgable topic.

Well, I know very little about the trinity.

 

[Katzpur]

Hopefully, my answer to Aqua will help us clarify the discussion.... I do believe you may not understand what we teach as the "Trinity".... be patient with me.

Well, I've kind of thought for quite some time that if Mormons and Catholics were to sit down and really try to see where the other is coming from, we'd actually find that our beliefs are not as different as it initially appears. I see the most significant difference as being that we believe that both the Father and the Son are physical beings, while you believe that only the Son is.

So, I'm assuming that this discussion is not finished yet, that you're going to help me understand your teaching a little better. Am I right?

 

[Aqualung]

Well, I've kind of thought for quite some time that if Mormons and Catholics were to sit down and really try to see where the other is coming from, we'd actually find that our beliefs are not as different as it initially appears.

Oh indeed! I agree most emphatically. :jam:

 

[Scott1]

Well, I've kind of thought for quite some time that if Mormons and Catholics were to sit down and really try to see where the other is coming from, we'd actually find that our beliefs are not as different as it initially appears.

I'm game.:bounce

I see the most significant difference as being that we believe that both the Father and the Son are physical beings, while you believe that only the Son is.

No. Yes, it is significant, but the dogma of the Trinity has nothing to do with that... the problem is that because you believe the Father and Son to be corporeal beings, the Creeds definition of "substance" gets ya'll off track.

The word substance, in this discussion, means essense or nature... it is not a corporeal/physical description.

So... let's see if I can understand your definitions....

God, a divine physical being is Father, creator of heaven and earth... the "boss" . Right?

Jesus, a divine physical being, is Son..... and that means.....????

• He was made by God out of physical matter different from himself. Yes/No?
• He was always in existance in physical matter, but with different matter than what God is made of? Y/N?

Hopefully, this will clear up where we should move on to next.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, it is significant, but the dogma of the Trinity has nothing to do with that... the problem is that because you believe the Father and Son to be corporeal beings, the Creeds definition of "substance" gets ya'll off track.

That’s right. I’m uncomfortable with that word. We Latter-day Saints just don’t speak of God as a substance.

The word substance, in this discussion, means essence or nature... it is not a corporeal/physical description.

Well, I see “essence” as meaning much the same as “substance,” but I’m okay with “nature.” If we stick to using the word “nature,” we can probably make some headway. It’s just that I’ve had this same conversation with Trinitarians who have said otherwise. I think that’s why I get frustrated. Sometimes I’m told that the word is referring to physical makeup and sometimes I’m told that it’s referring to divine nature.

So... let's see if I can understand your definitions....

God, a divine physical being is Father, creator of heaven and earth... the "boss." Right?

Sort of. The boss? Yes, definitely. Creator of heaven and earth? Well, the scriptures say that He (the Father) created the heavens and the earth, but that He did so by His Son. So it would be more accurate to say that we believe that Jesus Christ was the Creator, but that He acted under His Father’s direction.

Jesus, a divine physical being, is Son..... and that means.....????

He was made by God out of physical matter different from himself. Yes/No?

He was begotten by God. We believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, have a true father-son relationship. God is really Jesus’ father, just as Mary is really Jesus’ mother. We don’t, incidentally, have any doctrine regarding how He was conceived (although the anti-Mormons would love for you to believe that we do). Obviously, the Holy Ghost played a role in His conception, as He was said to have “overshadowed” Mary. But we don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of “the Highest,” i.e. “the boss.” At any rate, since Jesus is, in reality, God’s Only Begotten Son, He would share His Father’s physical attributes. You and your father do not share the same body, but you are made of the same “stuff” your father is made of. The same holds true of Jesus and His Father.

He was always in existence in physical matter, but with different matter than what God is made of? Y/N?

If I understand you correctly, no. Prior to His incarnation, He was a personage of spirit only, as the Holy Ghost is now. In other words, physical makeup is not a factor in determining divinity. A divine being may have a corporeal body or not; physical makeup is not part of what makes a being divine. Jesus took upon Himself a physical body when He entered mortality, and continues to have a physical body today. But, once He was resurrected, that body was no longer subject to disease or death. Like His Father, He now has a glorified, immortal body.

So, where do we go from here? Forward, maybe, or not?

 

[Scott1]

Well, I see “essence” as meaning much the same as “substance,” but I’m okay with “nature.” If we stick to using the word “nature,” we can probably make some headway. It’s just that I’ve had this same conversation with Trinitarians who have said otherwise. I think that’s why I get frustrated. Sometimes I’m told that the word is referring to physical makeup and sometimes I’m told that it’s referring to divine nature.

Ok... making headway is good.... but please know, I am not trying to change your view of what essence or substance is... I am only attempting to explain the Trinity using the language of the teachings.... we will stick to "nature" if that helps, because all three descriptions are interchangeable.

Sort of. The boss? Yes, definitely. Creator of heaven and earth? Well, the scriptures say that He (the Father) created the heavens and the earth, but that He did so by His Son. So it would be more accurate to say that we believe that Jesus Christ was the Creator, but that He acted under His Father’s direction.

Excellent.... spot on orthodox (correct) teaching.

He was begotten by God. We believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, have a true father-son relationship. God is really Jesus’ father, just as Mary is really Jesus’ mother.

Orthodox.

If I understand you correctly, no. Prior to His incarnation, He was a personage of spirit only, as the Holy Ghost is now. In other words, physical makeup is not a factor in determining divinity.

I agree... specifically in the determination of divinity.

So, where do we go from here? Forward, maybe, or not?

You tell me... it seems we have yet to find a reason not to call Mormons Trinitarian.... other than your choice not to be called so, of course.... I guess I just can't believe we're so close on this....

 

[dan]

You sound kind of pleased. I know I'd feel pretty bad getting put on someone's ignore list.

Not really. He didn't say why, and he never offered any evidence to refute the claims I imagine are responsible for my being ignored. He got upset because I continued to assert that the Catholic church is responsible for the deaths of millions. Does anyone think I'm wrong?

 

[dan]

I was honest when I said I was trying to be more respectful. My last post on the Trinity was devoid of any sarcasm or insult. I felt bad when I looked at some frugals and saw he thanked me for some earlier posts, despite my being pretty abrasive, but I didn't get back to him in time. Asi pasa a veces.

 

[Katzpur]

Excellent.... spot on orthodox (correct) teaching.
Orthodox.

I agree... specifically in the determination of divinity.

Well, so far, we've managed to demonstrate that the Latter-day Saints, just like the Catholics, believe that the Bible is the word of God.

You tell me... it seems we have yet to find a reason not to call Mormons Trinitarian.... other than your choice not to be called so, of course.... I guess I just can't believe we're so close on this....

Again, it's not that we don't believe in a trinity of sorts. It would probably be more accurate to say that we don't accept the verbiage of the Creeds. Also, I don't think that we see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "co-equal" in quite the same way as you do. And of course, there continues to be the issue of God the Father being corporeal. But I'm actually not all that surprised at how close our beliefs are. When all people can do is focus on their differences, they often fail to see the similarities. I'm just glad that we've been able to come as far as we have.

 

[Dentonz]

How do you reconcile the relationship then between God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost, bearing in mind there is only one God.

We are made in God's image (body, mind, spirit)
The Allmighty God can manifest himself anyway he likes. God the Father(body, the whole being of all that is), God the son(the mind or word of God manifested in flesh), The Holy Spirit( the Spirit and power of God).
Jesus was man with the total mind of God and the power of the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit.

But there is only ONE GOD.

 

[Merlin]

We are made in God's image (body, mind, spirit)
The Allmighty God can manifest himself anyway he likes. God the Father(body, the whole being of all that is), God the son(the mind or word of God manifested in flesh), The Holy Spirit( the Spirit and power of God).
Jesus was man with the total mind of God and the power of the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit.

But there is only ONE GOD.

So, no Trinity, just unity

 

[Merlin]

[/font][/color]
Ok... making headway is good.... but please know, I am not trying to change your view of what essence or substance is... I am only attempting to explain the Trinity using the language of the teachings.... we will stick to "nature" if that helps, because all three descriptions are interchangeable.



Excellent.... spot on orthodox (correct) teaching.



Orthodox.

I agree... specifically in the determination of divinity.
You tell me... it seems we have yet to find a reason not to call Mormons Trinitarian.... other than your choice not to be called so, of course.... I guess I just can't believe we're so close on this....

it is very nice to observe this mutual love in. The sad thing for me is that the debate sounds more like two politicians trying to agree a form of words to squeeze through some sort of diplomatic announcement.

The truth is that people who worship YHWH under any of his names are all heading in the same direction. Arguing about this word of that word, this minute concept or that minute concept, is so unimportant in the cosmic scale in which God must exist that I have always been surprised that anybody cares.

 

[Aqualung]

The truth is that people who worship YHWH under any of his names are all heading in the same direction. Arguing about this word of that word, this minute concept or that minute concept, is so unimportant in the cosmic scale in which God must exist that I have always been surprised that anybody cares.

You know, this entire web site is so unimportant in the cosmic scale in which God must exist that I have always been surprised that anybody cares. That's what this site is for. To argue whatever topic of religion you feel like, not just the "important" ones. And maybe it will make me have a better view of Catholics, or give scott a better view of Mormons. You think learning to accept people is unimportant? Even if it is, it's fun, and that's what this site is for.

 

[Merlin]

[/font][/color]

Well, so far, we've managed to demonstrate that the Latter-day Saints, just like the Catholics, believe that the Bible is the word of God.

I don't think Roman Catholics are creationists. Are LDS?

 

[Merlin]

You know, this entire web site is so unimportant in the cosmic scale in which God must exist that I have always been surprised that anybody cares. That's what this site is for. To argue whatever topic of religion you feel like, not just the "important" ones. And maybe it will make me have a better view of Catholics, or give scott a better view of Mormons. You think learning to accept people is unimportant? Even if it is, it's fun, and that's what this site is for.

You are all quite tetchy, aren't you. I was just expressing my opinion, or are the people who believe in one universal Church not allowed on this site?

 

[Aqualung]

You are all quite tetchy, aren't you. I was just expressing my opinion, or are the people who believe in one universal Church not allowed on this site?

Of course they're allowed on this site. But you were expressing your opinion on the worthiness of this thread, not on the trinity itself. That's what I'm "tetchy" about. You asked who accepted the trinity. We have to figure out what the trinity is before we decide if we accept it. Yes, it's a lot of arguing about the meaning of words, but that's what happens if you ask if somebody accepts a word.

 

[Merlin]

Not really. He didn't say why, and he never offered any evidence to refute the claims I imagine are responsible for my being ignored. He got upset because I continued to assert that the Catholic church is responsible for the deaths of millions. Does anyone think I'm wrong?

It is true that a huge number of deaths have been caused by the Church of the day. But all periods in history are different. It is rather like saying that Americans have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of the original indigenous natives (so-called red Indians). It may be true, but the days then were different from the days are now. People can only act within their experience and background and culture.

Once upon a time the church felt it useful to kill people who believed different things. They did terrible things on the Crusades, and in the Inquisition. Later the new Protestant religion in England did equally terrible things to Catholics. Catholics and Protestants have murdered each other for the last 60 years in Northern Ireland. Moslems and Christians have been fighting in Bosnia and doing terrible things to each other. We all know about the current problems between suicide bombers and the West.

None of this has anything to do with religion. These criminals just hide behind religion to do their wicked deeds. So it was certainly wrong to claim that it was the Roman Catholic Church itself that was responsible for the deaths. It was wicked people who happened to be Roman Catholic doing antireligious things, just as the suicide bombers do not represent Islam.

I suspect you knew that, and therefore (in my opinion) it was quite a wicked and un-Christian thing to say. In the sense it was said, no it is not true.

(I'm not a Catholic)