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

[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.

[LittleWyvern]

I think that if you believe in one, the other is difficult to understand simply because it is different and unfamiliar. It's like switching from Windows to a Mac (or the other way around if you're a Mac user)... there will be months of "wait... what?" moments before the new concept/paradigm is completely understood.

However, in this case, there's no motive to switch between the two options, so the confusion is perpetuated.

[Maxel]

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.

I'll re-post something I said in the other thread here, as I believe it is relevant to this topic of conversation.

So, would it be fair to say that the LDS viewpoint about the nature of God is clearer and easier to understand, and that the Trinitarian viewpoint about the nature of God is less clear and difficult to understand the basics, while impossible to understand it fully? It seems to me that, if that is the case, then each viewpoint validates the theology of each religion: the LDS see God's Kingdom and the nature of God as making rational sense even from human perspective, and Trinitarians believe that God's Kingdom and the nature of God don't make rational sense from a human perspective.

I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be difficult to understand in its essence, but it is not easier, at any level, to understand than the doctrine of the LDS Godhead. Questions similar to 'Is God talking to himself when Jesus addresses the Father?' are not adequate examples of the hole in Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the Trinitarian doctrine only seems to run afoul of incorrectness if one is to believe that God is a rational, explainable phenomenon. That's always how I've looked at it, anyway.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Maxel

I'll re-post something I said in the other thread here, as I believe it is relevant to this topic of conversation.

So, would it be fair to say that the LDS viewpoint about the nature of God is clearer and easier to understand, and that the Trinitarian viewpoint about the nature of God is less clear and difficult to understand the basics, while impossible to understand it fully?

Both views are relatively easy on the surface.

LDS Godhead = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we worship only the first one--since the other two work with him anyway, and he's got the authority.

Trinity = 1 X 1 X 1 = 1. Three distinct persons, but one God.

The LDS teaching is easier math, but when you throw in the idea of having one God, the complexity comes quickly.

The Trinity is easy to see and say, but quite difficult for us addition-bound beings to comprehend fully. It maintains monotheism by simply declaring that three persons are one essence.

In fact, the Trinitarian doctrine only seems to run afoul of incorrectness if one is to believe that God is a rational, explainable phenomenon. That's always how I've looked at it, anyway.

I would only tweek your mostly fair observation by saying that the Trinity does indeed betray our finite understanding, and that we capture only by forcing an apparent paradox (three persons, one God).

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by Book_of_Mormon_Warrior

I would be more then happy never to discuss peoples ideas of the Godhead, but the problem is people use the Trinity as one of the main arguments against the Restoration. So people that believe they are distinct persons joined in perfect unity of purpose as Elohim (plural) are forced to continually defend their beliefs.

As exampled by ErikJohnson's post about what defines a Christian. When approached from a strictly doctrinal point of view, the Nicean Trinity is a philosopher's dream- so complex that one could arrive at any conclusion with enough rearranging of logic and words, yet so relevant that the import of said conclusion affects the basis of an entire religion. If a person wanted to claim the right to be called a Christian and exclude others from that same privilege, the Nicean Trinity seems the perfect place to start.
(That's not a comment about the verity of the Trinity as doctrine, but rather about the philosophical complexity of it.)

This also brings something else to mind: what is so important about the nature of God? Why is it so important that we have a correct, if not basic, understanding of His being? That's something I'd like to hear about from a non-LDS Christian standpoint as well.

Personally, I think the nature of God is one of the most vital things we as human beings can learn because His nature reflects volumes of truth about Him, which in turn reflects volumes of truth about us. For example, to truly understand and appreciate the works of the great artists of the past, one must understand the artists' social circumstance and status, personality, philosophy, and more. As comprehension of said artist grows, appreciation and understanding of the artist's work grows.

PC's latest post seems to further justify this thinking. In LDS theology, we find many seeming paradoxes that arise naturally from the reality of things (free agency vs. predestination, for example) but no paradoxes in the nature of God. In Trinitarian doctrine, we see a paradox that must 'be forced' upon the nature of God to help finite mortals understand the nature of things on a higher plane of existence, eternally separated from our own.

The same thing applies to the nature of God, but in a way much more profound. Because we are His creations, understanding His nature helps us understand ourselves more.

For example: I see the nature of God in a much more organized, businesslike manner than non-LDS Christians (from my experience with other Christians). I see myself in but one stage of a life meant to progress far beyond my current comprehension. I see the family unit not only as a competent reflection of God's love, but as the best possible reflection of the power and nature of His love I can feel on this earth. I live my life according to the Gospel of Christ (as much as I can) in the hope that one day I will return to my Father in Heaven and that He will embrace me in His arms that He possesses as part of His physical body. I also hope that one day, in a time infinitely ahead of this singular moment, I will attain the kind of power and glory that the Father and the Son enjoy, and will be able to express that glorious love to my own spiritual offspring.

These are some of my deepest emotions and spiritual feelings, and they all derive, either in part or completely, from my understanding of the nature of God. If I were to honestly believe that God's nature was different than the LDS Godhead, my own spirit; my own personality and being; would be changed.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Both views are relatively easy on the surface.

LDS Godhead = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we worship only the first one--since the other two work with him anyway, and he's got the authority.

Trinity = 1 X 1 X 1 = 1. Three distinct persons, but one God.

I love your math. Beyond being concise and to the point, it helps root the doctrine in terms other than the purely philosophical, which is refreshing from time to time.

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

The Trinity is easy to see and say, but quite difficult for us addition-bound beings to comprehend fully. It maintains monotheism by simply declaring that three persons are one essence.

I've seen this defense a lot- that the doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at, in part, by a dire need to preserve monotheism in the religion (that's not what you're saying here, but I've read elsewhere that that was the case). I have no problem with monotheism (I describe myself as a monotheist, after all) but I am hesitant when an undue concern for one particular doctrine seems to trump all other factors. Was that a deciding factor when they cemented the final drafts of the Creed?

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I would only tweek your mostly fair observation by saying that the Trinity does indeed betray our finite understanding, and that we capture only by forcing an apparent paradox (three persons, one God).

Thank you for the clarification. And, I was going for fairness. When matters of inter religious doctrinal discord arises, I try to approach with a completely open and unbiased mind. I'm glad I mostly succeeded.

[Maureen]

I doubt this will help but I like this old and simple explanation:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986). (Gregory Thaumaturgus - in his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

God has always existed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These persons have always had a relationship with each other. God is so Supreme, so Almighty, so Grand, so Divine, so Unique he must be seen as quite singular. There is no one else like God, therefore there is only One God. So accordingly there is one God and he exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This is how I see God.

M.

[Faded]

I've been trying for a lot of years to really and truly get the Trinity Doctrine. The best closest I have come is the picture I posted in the other thread.

Add the footnote, "there is only one God" and that pretty well covers it.

This is not my own contrived symbol. It's a visual that Trinitarians have used for centuries to help themselves and others understand the Trinity Doctrine. It's called the Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei. Shield of the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I bumped into it years ago and had to go look for a copy to share.

As a Latter Day Saint, the Trinity is especially hard to comprehend for me. That did not stop me from trying my very best to understand it. It is always my goal to understand the beliefs of others to the best of my ability. The Shield of the Trinity in its various forms provides the best visual representation of the Trinity concept. It is at least consoling that nobody I've ever met has an easy time with the Trinity Doctrine. It challenges the mind like few other things can. The Shield gives the basic understanding. Analysis beyond that gets very hard, very fast. Athanasius himself, the great champion of the Trinity Doctrine, admitted that the harder he tried to understand the Trinity the more confused he found himself.

I was looking forward to the promised explanation where the Trinity is "easy to understand." I do feel a tad disappointed. I have the concept down fairly well, but its anything but "easy to understand" for me. Thanks for trying PC.

[FunkyTown]

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.

This reminds me of a description I'd heard of the beginnings of the universe. Please bear with me as I write of Genesis through the eyes of a Physics major.


"Ten thousand years ago, the universe was without form and void. God decided he wanted a world. Thus, he created the universe. He wanted it to be old, so 144 hours later, billions of years had passed and the world and all life was created."

This description pleases him to no end. It doesn't challenge his faith, but rather affirms it. To many others, this description fills them with confusion and just feels 'wrong' and so they reject it when it's spelled out, despite this being exactly what many people believe without having thought about it.

So it is with the Trinity. Does its incomprehensibility mean it's wrong? No, I don't believe so. I do believe in the Prophets both ancient and modern, however, which means the question is answered for me. I also believe God when He wrote, "Would that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I will spit you forth from my mouth." and so I must defend it, but I understand and love those who disagree. I just think they're incorrect.

[Elgama]

I think what is so hard is the fact we are trying to understand something we will not truly understand in a mortal existence or plane. Whilst it seems so vital to me its one of the least important points of being LDS because ultimately God is what God is our attempts to describe God only change him in our minds

-Charley