What's so hard to understand about the Trinity vs. the LDS Godhead?

[a-train]

Originally Posted by omega0401

The LDS do not worship Jesus Christ but believe Him to be the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer, without whom we could never return to live with our Father in Heaven. We do as he has taught us to do in the scripture to pray unto the Father in His name. It is the Father that we worship.

If you have found some LDS that worship Jesus Christ, it may be that they worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind but not as God the Father. We do not pray to Jesus but we pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ.

"And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out." (2 Nephi 25:29)

In our services we sing: "I believe in Christ- my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. I'll worship him with all my might; He is the source of truth and light." (I Believe in Christ, Hymn 134 third verse)

Worship is not exclusive to the Father according to Nephi or Bruce R. McConkie.

If you saw the PBS special: The Mormons, President Hinkley said plainly: "we worship Christ". This was quoted on the Church News Website.

To be frank, I am somewhat befuddled by the confusion among members. Conversely, it only makes sense that non-members question our beliefs about Jesus when members are confused about whether Jesus is God or whether we worship Him.

Back in 1998, President Hinckley said this in Conference: "Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life."

Now look, I'm not trying to get into your bonnet, but this is a serious issue. Just look at the context of Hinckley's talk! He is talking about his answers to non-members! If he answers the question that way, is this answer not good enough for us? I strongly encourage you to take a good hard look at the scriptures and the talks of our modern prophets. MORMONS WORSHIP JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE ETERNAL GOD.

This is not a mystery. This is not new doctrine. This should come as no shock to any Mormon. But, so long as Mormons seem to be confused about the issue, I suppose the non-Mormon community will remain so as well.

-a-train

[a-train]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Interestingly, in my three years here I've seen a few LDS hold on to monotheism (Dr. Robinson, from the How Wide the Divide book, is a good example), but others embrace the middle ground of henotheism (many gods exist, but we worship only one), and some others simply say...yes we are ultimately polytheists, since we believe we will become Gods ourselves.

I hope that the spectrum is not one of theological beliefs, but of definitions of the term "monotheism". I would wager that is the case. Many LDS persons could not tell you the difference between henotheism and monotheism without a dictionary.

It is official LDS doctrine that man and God are of the same species. This by definition excludes any ability to appeal to the term "monotheism" insofar as it denotes a Diety of unique species.

-a-train

[jadams_4040]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. There is only one God.
5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That statement does not make any sense?

[Maxel]

I think in all faiths, there comes a point where the faithful must simply abandon their understanding and logic and trust in the divine power of God. For those of the Trinitarian tradition, the Trinity is one of those points. For the LDS, we find those points in different questions (i.e., if God and Man is the same species, where did that species originate?).

[a-train]

Originally Posted by Maxel

if God and Man is the same species, where did that species originate?

The species is eternal: a notion incomprehensible to those whose faith is based on the primum movens, or prime mover, philosophy. The logical end of this philosophy is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). By this Aristotelian logic, we linearly consider the cause of each movement, looking back through time until we arrive at an uncaused cause, a prime mover. This mover is believed to be God.

While this is faith promoting philosophy to some, it is nonscriptural and simply loaded with trouble. Joseph Smith plainly taught that there is no time where God resides: "the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal "now;"" (TPJS p220). Figure 1 on facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham is said by Joseph Smith to signify "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time." When we take away the linear confines of time, the whole primum movens philosophy falls apart.

Joseph Smith explained plainly: "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself." (TPJS p353-354)

This is faith shattering blasphemy to those who cling doggedly to philosophy for their faith.

What the philosophers for Christianity fail to understand is that if philosophy is worthy to prove God, it must also be worthy to disprove Him.

If indeed God is eternally passing through the linear confines of time and He alone is eternal: the First Mover, then he must therefore have traversed an infinite period to arrive at His first creation, his first movement. Otherwise, He would have always been moving and therefore movement would have been co-eternal with Him. Either way, the linear First Mover philosophy is exploded by philosophy itself. No wonder so many doubt this form of faith.

What Joseph Smith pointed out is that time is only a perception associated with mortality. We will some day pass back through the veil (our "rings" will be "joined again") and there possess our eternal mental faculties. We will ultimately go back to our state outside of time. We are eternal beings and eternal children of our Eternal Father.

The pain of eternal damnation and the happiness of eternal life becomes extremely poignant when considering the eternal nature of man and his relation to God.

-a-train

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by a-train

Although I cannot see how Trinitarianism explicitly indicates that God is not human, the notion is believed for the most part by Trinitarians as far as I can tell. Still, Trinitarians would doubtfully argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of distinct species. Indeed they are of the same species. Thus even Trinitarians acknowledge that there does exist a sense in which three distinct persons are of the species of God, and thus a plurality of that species exists. However, they maintain that this plurality cannot be so stated that it would in some way depart from a strict monotheist view. Many Muslims argue that Trinitarianism is not Monotheist enough for this reason.

In terms of species, I would define Humanity and Divinity as different species. Many exist in the Humanity species category but only God exists in the Divinity species category. Trinitarians would say that there exists three distinct persons in the Godhead but these three persons are of this singular species. There exists only one being that is of the Divinity species, therefore there is only one God. But you are correct a-train, Trinitarians see God as plural because God is three persons and singular because God is one.

BTW, I loved your post.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by LittleWyvern

Monotheist is belief in one God, correct?

Well, we believe that the Holy Father is God, the Son is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. So, to us, there's only one God there.

Do you believe that Jesus is, in his essence, subordinate (less than) the Father? By this, I do not speak to rank or title or authority, but to being. If so, I've never heard another LDS person say so...such would be similar to the Jehovah's Witness view that Jesus is "a god," but not Jehovah God.

Also, if the Holy Spirit is not God, what is He?

[Faded]

I think the single most disastrous result from the perspective of both Trinitarians and members of the LDS faith is that so much focus is thrown at, "What we are not" that both parties do not properly realize what they themselves believe.

The majority of people who belong to Trinitarian denominations do not comprehend even the most basic part of what they themselves supposedly believe about God. They just know that, "Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others are wrong, belief in a 'false god' and are going to hell for it." Introduce the Trinity to them at the most basic level and they'll look at you like you're from another planet or something.

Latter Day Saints are likewise distracted. Most at least have the basic concept of the Godhead, but in the process of refuting the ideology of "one substance" many of us fail to fully appreciate how One and how United the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really are. We pray to the Father but we receive answers to those prayers through the Holy Spirit and forgiveness from our sins through Jesus Christ. Essentially, praying to the Father in a large way praying to all three, yet it is also an acknowledgment of His position among them and that everything starts with Him.

A lot of confusion enters into everyone's vocabulary with the word "God". Sure it has a lot of meanings. But God has two meanings from the LDS perspective. 1.) God = God the Father. 2.) God = any other being who is Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient and whose power is also infinite -- which would include Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Verbiage can get confusing here. Within the context of this definition, one could say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God -- because of the usage of the word to refer specifically to God the Father. But they are both Gods by the second definition.

All three are all-powerful but God the Father is first and foremost among them. While there is a lot of debate over the matter on other concepts between the Trinitarians and ourselves, it has always been my understanding that God the Father is understood to be the highest and most prominent in the Trinity (by rank for lack of a better word.) If true, then we have a basic level of common ground on this matter.

[omega0401]

Originally Posted by a-train

Worship is not exclusive to the Father according to Nephi or Bruce R. McConkie.

You are right but the following question and definition begs to be asked, “In what WAY then do we worship God the Father and God the Son?” I hope you don’t say we worship them the same. They each have their own purpose, after all, they are in a Godhead for a reason. God the Father is the Father of our spirits and we worship Him as such. You can’t worship the Savior that same way or that would be blasphemous.

Regarding the reporter. I wished he had followed up his question with President Hinckley with, “If you worship Christ then do you pray to Christ?” I bet his answer would be NO because we worship them differently.

LDS worship God the Son, but as I said in my last post, we worship Him as the Savior. We can’t do that with God the Father because He gave that responsibility to His Son. It was His Son that came down to earth to teach us and to atone and suffer for our sins and was crucified and resurrected that we also may overcome death and be resurrected. It wasn’t God the Father that did that. We worship the Savior in that respect.

When I said we worship God the Father it was because we worship him as the Father of us all because He and He alone is the creator of our Spirits and that makes Him our Father. That was the definition of worship that I was thinking of but I did not make that distinction clear.

To be frank, I am somewhat befuddled by the confusion among members. Conversely, it only makes sense that non-members question our beliefs about Jesus when members are confused about whether Jesus is God or whether we worship Him.

Well hopefully these posts will help enlighten non members and a few LDS. I feel that it is good to discuss even the basic teachings of our faith.

Now look, I'm not trying to get into your bonnet, but this is a serious issue.

You’re not in my bonnet at all and it is a serious issue. In fact this has been a good discussion and I’m glad PC brought this question up. I think it will help and it has been an interesting thread.

Let me throw out another question. Do Mormons believe in the Trinity? I would say almost. We do believe there are three separate physical persons and they are one God in the sense that they are a Godhead. But we worship each in a different way and we pray only to ONE God that is God the Father.

There is a previous post of mine that I wanted to correct. When I wrote about the Trinity I was thinking about the teachings from the Nicene Creed that teaches that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three personalities that are in one substance or being. Later I realized that is not what the Trinity is about. The Trinity believes they are three separate physical persons but worshipped as one God.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

My question is... Why Christians think their view is any more valid and would use it as a tool to condemn LDS as non-Christian heretics heading to the very bowels of hell?
If you believe God is some incomprehensible being then it should not bother you that LDS folks comprehend Him differently.
Should not our focus be on helping people come to a relationship with the crucified and risen Savior Jesus Christ instead of arguing over something everybody agrees is incomprehensible on some level or the other?