Confusion over trinity doctrine

[jay santos]

Today in church, a member bore her testimony. She is an adult, life long active member, BYU grad, intelligent type member.

paraphrasing she said something like "I feel like I have a good relationship with God, but I'm struggling to feel a personal connection and relationship with Christ and understand exactly what is role is in my life, personally."

The trinity doctrine as defined by Catholic or Protestant church isn't logical, and we LDS like to hammer that point of how logical our trinity doctrine is. But I believe it perhaps equally confusing and inelegant. This is a good illustration why.

It's a confusing doctrine, and I'm not sure the LDS version is an improvement.

[Guest]

If it's confusing, then it isn't an improvement. To me, the Catholic trinity is very bazaar and makes no sense at all. But since most christian church's believe along the lines of the Catholic trinity, and because Mormons believe there are 3 distinct beings, it's easy to see why Mormons look like pagans to other religions. I agree. It clarifies nothing.

[myboynoah]

Today in church, a member bore her testimony. She is an adult, life long active member, BYU grad, intelligent type member.

paraphrasing she said something like "I feel like I have a good relationship with God, but I'm struggling to feel a personal connection and relationship with Christ and understand exactly what is role is in my life, personally."

The trinity doctrine as defined by Catholic or Protestant church isn't logical, and we LDS like to hammer that point of how logical our trinity doctrine is. But I believe it perhaps equally confusing and inelegant. This is a good illustration why.

It's a confusing doctrine, and I'm not sure the LDS version is an improvement.

I guess I don't understand what she is seeking, and why. Why do you assume that her seeming inability to "feel a personal connection and relationship with Christ" is a result of a confusing and inelegant Godhead doctrine? I don't understand how someone who believes that Christ died for them, making immortality and eternal life possible, as was the plan from the beginning, how that person wouldn't feel a personal connection with Christ, the being that makes all of that possible. But again, I don't understand what she is seeking, and why.

[ERCougar]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

[Guest]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

Good point. How is it a "man" could come up with everything. We all see people do stupid things all the time and sometimes we are guilty ourselves. So it's hard to imagine someone in a man's body being so powerful and perfect.

[jay santos]

I guess I don't understand what she is seeking, and why. Why do you assume that her seeming inability to "feel a personal connection and relationship with Christ" is a result of a confusing and inelegant Godhead doctrine? I don't understand how someone who believes that Christ died for them, making immortality and eternal life possible, as was the plan from the beginning, how that person wouldn't feel a personal connection with Christ, the being that makes all of that possible. But again, I don't understand what she is seeking, and why.

We're monotheists. The Bible and BoM is monotheist. But then we have Joseph Smith bringing out polytheism with the council of the Gods, God the Father, Grandpa God, Uncle God, Great Grandpa God, etc. And we haven't decided as a church if we're sticking with that and polytheism or we're dumping that and going back to BoM monotheism. I think it's very natural for a long time member to have confusing feelings about their personal relationship with their God, because they're not sure if it's one or multiple or what.

[Pheidippides]

If it's confusing, then it isn't an improvement. To me, the Catholic trinity is very bazaar and makes no sense at all. But since most christian church's believe along the lines of the Catholic trinity, and because Mormons believe there are 3 distinct beings, it's easy to see why Mormons look like pagans to other religions. I agree. It clarifies nothing.

This makes sense to me. Didn't most of the various creeds get voted on in Istanbul (not Constantinople)?

[Jeff Lebowski]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

Exactly.

A few years ago in GD class the teacher read a copy of a catholic statement on the nature and attributes of God and then everyone had a good laugh at how absurd it sounded. A friend of mine leaned over and whispered "To be honest, that makes more sense than our doctrine". The teacher singled out the "incomprehensible" part of the statement for particular ridicule. I was struck by the irony that we somehow think our view of an omnipotent and omniscient God is comprehensible.

[myboynoah]

We're monotheists. The Bible and BoM is monotheist. But then we have Joseph Smith bringing out polytheism with the council of the Gods, God the Father, Grandpa God, Uncle God, Great Grandpa God, etc. And we haven't decided as a church if we're sticking with that and polytheism or we're dumping that and going back to BoM monotheism. I think it's very natural for a long time member to have confusing feelings about their personal relationship with their God, because they're not sure if it's one or multiple or what.

The Church's first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.

Pretty clear statement of what LDS believe about the Godhead when it concerns this world and God's creations.

Nothing there about council of gods, grandpa god, etc. You would know better than I would, but it didn't sound like your fellow ward member was expressing concern about great grandpa god.

[clackamascoug]

This makes sense to me. Didn't most of the various creeds get voted on in Istanbul (not Constantinople)?

It was actually Nicaea, now called Iznik, Turkey. Where by chance, (as I've pointed out before) I was baptized.

[SeattleUte]

One thing Palagius and I agree on -- maybe the only thing -- is an admiration for the artistry and aesthetic if not philosophical elegance of the Trinity.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...hlight=Trinity

It's ultimately where Talmage wound up after much anguished thought. It makes a lot more sense than the clunky LDS who's on first approach. The Trinity really is inextricably bound up with the very essence of what made Christianity new and startling (to borrow one of Orson Scott Card's favorite turns of phrases), what makes Christianity what it is.

Also, the LDS godhead is yet another concept introduced by Joseph Smith that really wasn't at all original. It preceded the Trinity and was, after much thought and conflict, rejected by early Christians on aesthetic and intellectual grounds.

[Moliere]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

Not sure I'd agree, at least if you believe that God is pretty much just an exalted man. Of course, I'm not fully on board with the "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" God as I've said before I'm more of a Mormon Deist.

I do understand a bit what the woman in the OP is thinking. As much as I love the belief that God has a body, it takes away a bit of that unique relationship from Christ in a way that the trinity doesn't. The trinity allows for the all powerful god (the Father) and also for a personal, mortal connection (Christ) to be made with the same being. It's a bit odd, but it can work in a religious realm.

[ERCougar]

Exactly.

A few years ago in GD class the teacher read a copy of a catholic statement on the nature and attributes of God and then everyone had a good laugh at how absurd it sounded. A friend of mine leaned over and whispered "To be honest, that makes more sense than our doctrine". The teacher singled out the "incomprehensible" part of the statement for particular ridicule. I was struck by the irony that we somehow think our view of an omnipotent and omniscient God is comprehensible.

Harrell's book has been pretty eye-opening on the subject, and makes me wonder if we have this one right, or if we'll return to a Trinitarian view some day. Grant Palmer (I think) implied that Joseph Smith introduced the idea of a second being of the Godhead during the Kirtland years, as an attempt to consolidate power by providing new doctrine. I wonder if he's right.

To me, the Trinity is a beautiful concept, and honestly, praying to a God that is omnipresent and on a higher incomprehensible sphere/dimension feels much more real than praying to a God in a suit and tie with a beard somewhere in our universe (I'm being facetious here, and don't want to offend, but as soon as you claim that God is an exalted man somewhere, I can't avoid wondering where He is and what He looks like). CS Lewis gives a nice description:

You know that in space you can move in three ways – to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube – a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings – just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal – something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.

For those who have read Flatland, this feels a little familiar, although I like the idea of a sphere passing through a plane--appears as a circle, but is really something of a whole different dimension.

God should be incomprehensible. We try to nail down way too many specifics in our Church (and usually run into problems when we do).

[wuapinmon]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

I'm serious here. Read the first six chapters of Neil Gaiman's The Sandman graphic novel.

[beefytee]

The idea of God physically and currently inhabiting a man-sized space in a universe that he created introduces more difficulties than the Trinity ever did.

... a God in a suit and tie with a beard somewhere in our universe ...

Why the limitation of him having to be in the universe? Because the universe is the known range of anything physical?