The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by a-train

I have decided that Mormons and Trinitarians believe the very same theological model of the Godhead with a single distinction: The existance of distinct and seperate corporeal tabernacles for the Father and the Son respectively; a notion acknowledged by Mormons and disbelieved by non-Mormons. All other differences are purely semantic.

-a-train

You are largely right, but that difference allows for polytheism and for human deification, whereas trinitarian theology does not.

[AnthonyB]

LDS appears to me to be a bit like Islam (and to lesser extant Catholicism) there is officially declared core doctrines and then there are a large number of "folk beliefs", wide spread beliefs that aren't official doctrines but comonly held.

I (and I think many other non-LDS) still get confused between which beleifs are core LDS and which are "folk beliefs" (things which may be true but have never been codified into scripture).

Many Protestants once saw a number of Catholic practices and beliefs in an extremely negative way, today although we may still disagree many have learned that with proper study and understanding of what is being done and believed that the gaps are not as large as we once thought.

Probably more pertinient to LDS is the SDA example, as they were once widely held as being a "cult" by many Protestants but are now largely seen as eccentric fellow Christians (even to some extent being excepted as Evanglelicals).

I don't see the gap with the LDS ever being closed (although once many would have thought the same of Catholics and Protestants), you are a distinct expression of Christianity that is at several points irrevocabley separated from the rest of us.

I do however think that if the essential LDS doctrines were expressed carefully and nuanced correctly, the differences in a large numbr of areas are not as great as they appear initially.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

LDS appears to me to be a bit like Islam (and to lesser extant Catholicism) there is officially declared core doctrines and then there are a large number of "folk beliefs", wide spread beliefs that aren't official doctrines but comonly held.

I (and I think many other non-LDS) still get confused between which beleifs are core LDS and which are "folk beliefs" (things which may be true but have never been codified into scripture).

Many Protestants once saw a number of Catholic practices and beliefs in an extremely negative way, today although we may still disagree many have learned that with proper study and understanding of what is being done and believed that the gaps are not as large as we once thought.

Probably more pertinient to LDS is the SDA example, as they were once widely held as being a "cult" by many Protestants but are now largely seen as eccentric fellow Christians (even to some extent being excepted as Evanglelicals).

I don't see the gap with the LDS ever being closed (although once many would have thought the same of Catholics and Protestants), you are a distinct expression of Christianity that is at several points irrevocabley separated from the rest of us.

I do however think that if the essential LDS doctrines were expressed carefully and nuanced correctly, the differences in a large numbr of areas are not as great as they appear initially.

Well, I suggest that the same can be said of just about any other religion. Many would be amazed at aspects of Catholic worship, for example, in certain places in Central and South America or even Southeast Asia. Many charismatic and Pentecostal traditions have incorporated many beliefs and rituals from local traditions. The Christian church at Rome in the second century adopted traditions that came from old Latin festivals, celebrations and communal rituals. They are still here today.

In fact, you would be surprised that many fellow evangelicals and protestants in general (I am referring to ordinary church members) would admit to similar perplexities in regards to the Trinity and the nature of God. By far, most Christians donot devote a significant amount of time to pondering and researching issues of deep doctrine. I think we are statistically an anomaly here in this forum. We should not make inferences otherwise. Also in the LDS church we are encouraged to seek inspiration and personal interpretation of the scriptures. Most people actually state such clearly and say things like: "this is interpretation according to me". I am, for once, not inclined to speculate much since we already have enough clear and pristine principles we should master before we go out on a limb and try to swim in a sea of conjecture.

If we must know absolutely and precisely correct doctrine and theology to be saved then most of humanity will be lost.

[AnthonyB]

Islander,

I actually once took a class in Systematic Theology in AOG college (PC's church), other then the humorous need for the lecturer to defend the need for Systematic Theology from a small section of the class. (I'm mean I had no objectons to their views but why enrol for a course if your utterly convinced that the subject shouldn't be studied).

The other realy striking issue was just how many people had wrong ideas about the trinity. At the start of section he let the students express their views and then picked out which heresies their views included. nearly everyone fell into or got close to one error or another.

So I'd agree that the vast majority of Christians that sit in the pews have a clear idea of the trinity. (Incidently I actually got the top mark for the essays on the trinity, I argued that the church had spent 2000 years basically declaring any substantive attempt to clarify the doctrine as a heresy.)

[Snow]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Trinity: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Each is a distinct person, yet they are the one true and living God. Only Jesus has a body, so he's the only one we could look upon as being human-looking.

Of course as the scriptures clearly teach, he who has seen the Son has seen the Father and man was created in image of God, so, uh, you know...

[Snow]

Originally Posted by a-train

I have decided that Mormons and Trinitarians believe the very same theological model of the Godhead with a single distinction: The existance of distinct and seperate corporeal tabernacles for the Father and the Son respectively; a notion acknowledged by Mormons and disbelieved by non-Mormons. All other differences are purely semantic.

-a-train

Well - that's untrue. Not only do Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, they also believe that they are co-equal. Mormons do not. It is not a semantic difference.

[abqfriend]

Agree-major differences exist.
-Carol

Originally Posted by Snow

Well - that's untrue. Not only do Trinitarians believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are consubstantial, they also believe that they are co-equal. Mormons do not. It is not a semantic difference.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Snow

Of course as the scriptures clearly teach, he who has seen the Son has seen the Father and man was created in image of God, so, uh, you know...

I occasionally like to go back to our Jewish roots to see how they interpret their own Scripture on these matters.

Judaism 101: Human Nature

[Snow]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I occasionally like to go back to our Jewish roots to see how they interpret their own Scripture on these matters.

Judaism 101: Human Nature

"Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance."

Ah - but what the Jews think today is hardly relevant. Much more to the point - what did the ancient Jews think?

While there was no such thing as a complete and universal consensus, the ancient Jews believed in a corporeal, embodied, physical God.

[CatchTheRedeye]

I hope I don't offend anyone in responding to this thread as an agnostic who doesn't believe in god or Jesus. I respect all of your opinions. I especially appreciate ABQfriend when she says that she doesn't really understand the idea of the Trinity, but she believes in her church and maybe someday she'll understand it but she's not worried about it for now.

That being said, whenever anyone tries to explain the Trinity concept to me it just sounds like a litany of canned phrases and my head starts to spin. It seems like a mass of confusion that I can't come close to grasping. The godhead is a three-in-one spirit essence that fills the immensity of space? It has no body, parts, or passions? The godhead is unknown, unknowable, and uncreated?

I searched and found a talk from the Mormon apostle Bruce Mcconkie discussing this and to me the LDS belief in the godhead is much more believable. One thing he talks about, however, that I don't understand either is the notion that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. IMHO only.

I know this is a thread for 'traditional christians' but the speech I am talking about can be found at:
The Mystery of Godliness - Bruce R. McConkie