Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, blind guide

[_ClarkGoble]

The doctrine of the Trinity has survived a long time in spite of its difficulty and over the centuries there has been a lot of thought about it. It may well be nothing in the end but obfuscation piled onto nonsense, but it's weird for a former university president to ignore all of it so completely. Holland's learning on the topic looks to be about that of a high-school student who has just Googled "council of Nicaea".

I think the Trinity notion makes far more sense if you view it through the lens of neoplatonism. If you're not familiar with that ontology it really is very confusing. Even contemporary philosophers like Richard Cartwright have argued it's intrinsically inconsistent. The problem with saying that the trinity has three beings is that technically they aren't beings but are ontologically separate from beings. Beings all exist as created by God with an ontological gap between God and those being. The three members of the Trinity, at least in the form Augustine promoted, have abstract relations like certain types of abstractions in neoplatonism. That said the Trinity is also a pretty big break with neoplatonism precisely because the gap between God and creation (which is alien to Platonism).

These examples are both famous classics of high-concept sci-fi. So I don't think you have to believe in the Trinity, or even believe that Trinitarian theology really works as a coherently fleshed-out concept, to find the Trinity interesting as an attempt at a difficult kind of idea. To dismiss it as Holland does is pretty philistine for a university president.

I think his main argument is that the Trinity is incomprehensible. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I'm not sure I'd go that far. One can make sense out of it but it is a rather complex ontology. Still I do agree that I wish he was a bit more respectful of other people's religious views. I think he could have made the same points merely by emphasizing Joseph's idea of God as comprehensible and knowable.

[_ClarkGoble]

The Trinity permeated the early Mormon religion until it was thrown under the bus after 1835

I think the Trinity isn't just the idea that God is One so much as it is a particular set of claims about how they are One. It's true that the Book of Mormon talks of God being one but I don't think it necessarily does in a fashion that's trinitarian. Those who read the Book of Mormon primarily in terms of 19th century parallels tend to see Mosiah 15 as an argument for modalism, for example. (I'm not sure that's a fair way to read it mind you - I think it's much more likely to be an example of merkabah type speculations such as one finds in 3 Enoch)

[_Mittens]

The Trinity permeated the early Mormon religion until it was thrown under the bus after 1835

I think the Trinity isn't just the idea that God is One so much as it is a particular set of claims about how they are One. It's true that the Book of Mormon talks of God being one but I don't think it necessarily does in a fashion that's trinitarian. Those who read the Book of Mormon primarily in terms of 19th century parallels tend to see Mosiah 15 as an argument for modalism, for example. (I'm not sure that's a fair way to read it mind you - I think it's much more likely to be an example of merkabah type speculations such as one finds in 3 Enoch)

COUNSEL GIVEN BY PRESIDENT CHARLES W. PENROSE

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, Section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three Persons in the Trinity—the one God, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear him, you will learn ail about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and redemption of the dead.

. (General Conference Report, April 1922, pp. 27-28.)

[_huckelberry]

Mittens, I do not think I get what point you are trying to make or discuss.

This board is full of either Mormons or exMormons who are familiar with the material you are presenting. I remember being aware that the doctrine developed. I learned about that when I was in high school.

Do you think doctrinal developement is a bad thing? Do you not think there is a relationship between the simple presentation of trinity and the later Mormon idea of Godhead? Of course there is.

[Guest]

Mittens, I do not think I get what point you are trying to make or discuss.

This board is full of either Mormons or exMormons who are familiar with the material you are presenting. I remember being aware that the doctrine developed. I learned about that when I was in high school.

Do you think doctrinal developement is a bad thing? Do you not think there is a relationship between the simple presentation of trinity and the later Mormon idea of Godhead? Of course there is.

If it comes from God the first time it shouldn't need doctrinal development

[_Physics Guy]

I think the Trinity notion makes far more sense if you view it through the lens of neoplatonism. [Neoplatonism] really is very confusing. Even contemporary philosophers ... have argued it's intrinsically inconsistent. ... [T]he Trinity is also a pretty big break with neoplatonism precisely because the gap between God and creation (which is alien to Platonism).

It sounds as though Neoplatonism isn't actually a good way to think about the Trinity at all, then.

I'm afraid this is an example of why I'm often impatient with discussions of ancient philosophy. Stumbling over how you can't really call the Persons of the Trinity "beings" because by definition "beings" are created—that's clearly a problem of clumsy terminology, not an insight.

Ancient philosophy is naturally full of such glitches. It was dealing with hard problems while drawing from a tiny talent pool and not even its greatest minds had the benefit of later learning. The population base of ancient thinkers was tiny and their world view was small. To cite ancient thinkers in modern discussions is like telling Manhattan how they do things in Hoboken. Only a lot more so, in fact.

And in this particular case I'm a bit worried, Clark, because the scenario I see is this: mediocre thinkers in the 19th century, mediocre thinkers in the first millennium, and a smart guy in the 21st century managing to put them together. It's an impressive job, but he's not digging up gold. He's gilding over base metal.

I think his main argument is that the Trinity is incomprehensible. ... I think he could have made the same points merely by emphasizing Joseph's idea of God as comprehensible and knowable.

Right. But I have to say I find Smith's simple polytheism much too simple. I don't expect insects to understand human psychology. Far less do I expect the nature of God to be easy for humans to grasp.

[_ClarkGoble]

It sounds as though Neoplatonism isn't actually a good way to think about the Trinity at all, then.

In some ways, primarily due to the gap between creator and creation, it's completely misleading. Platonism held to emanations whereas as the doctrine of the trinity developed along with a particular ontological claim about creation (technically not part of the trinity doctrine proper). However the relations of the persons in the Godhead is straight out of neoplatonism. Again though one can accept the trinity without necessarily adopting Augustine's conception of the relations. Plus of course it was in the relations that the western church and the eastern church disagreed.

I'm afraid this is an example of why I'm often impatient with discussions of ancient philosophy. Stumbling over how you can't really call the Persons of the Trinity "beings" because by definition "beings" are created—that's clearly a problem of clumsy terminology, not an insight.

Well, except that to the people developing the doctrine those were key issues. If you're point is the doctrine is confusing, I'm all with you. If your point is they worried about things that seem pointless to us I'm also fully with you.

And in this particular case I'm a bit worried, Clark, because the scenario I see is this: mediocre thinkers in the 19th century, mediocre thinkers in the first millennium, and a smart guy in the 21st century managing to put them together. It's an impressive job, but he's not digging up gold. He's gilding over base metal.

I just find the history interesting.

But I have to say I find Smith's simple polytheism much too simple. I don't expect insects to understand human psychology. Far less do I expect the nature of God to be easy for humans to grasp.

I don't think Joseph necessarily disagrees. Further there's a ton that's left unexplored in Mormon thought. I think though that Mormonism tends to see God as intelligible even if we may not understand everything now whereas the emphasis in traditional Christianity was that God wasn't comprehensible. An idea that reached it's peak with Anselm's negative theology. So the emphasis on not understanding seems to many Mormons a cop-out. It's a way of simply avoiding alternatives to how God could intelligibly be one without the confusing doctrine of the trinity.

[_ClarkGoble]

COUNSEL GIVEN BY PRESIDENT CHARLES W. PENROSE

This doesn't seem to address my comment that the issue isn't whether the godhead is one but how they are one. It's helpful if instead of just providing a quote with no commentary you give an argument showing how it supports a particular position. Honestly I can't quite make sense out of what it is you're even arguing for.

I should add that there isn't a univocal view within Mormonism on this point. Mormons tend to see the label of "persons" as basically equivalent to how we use it when talking with regular people. i.e. Jesus and the Father are different persons the same way my wife and I are different persons. Whereas at least among the more formally theologically trained people I've discussed the trinity with they see person as best as an analogy and more often get into the nuances of why the term hypostasis was picked.

But with respect to whether there's an ontological unity some Mormons say yes while others think it's merely a nominalistic unity. (Usually cast just as having the same type of goals, ideas, and powers) One of the more popular strains of Mormon thought on the matter was Orson Pratt who basically had this odd materialistic conception of the trinity. That is there was a spiritual fluid that permeated the whole universe that was the shared substance of all divine beings. (Pratt associated this with the aether which at that time was still a live theory in physics but was falsified during the developments that led to relativity) Of course most see Pratt's views as more than a little odd but it shows the range of views from there being a real substantial unity to more nominalistic conceptions such as one typically saw with McConkie.

[_huckelberry]

Mittens, I do not think I get what point you are trying to make or discuss.

This board is full of either Mormons or exMormons who are familiar with the material you are presenting. I remember being aware that the doctrine developed. I learned about that when I was in high school.

Do you think doctrinal developement is a bad thing? Do you not think there is a relationship between the simple presentation of trinity and the later Mormon idea of Godhead? Of course there is.

If it comes from God the first time it shouldn't need doctrinal development

That sounds like a demonstration that the Bible didn't come from God.

(myself I believe the Bible is a guide inspired by God, but I do not believe any of it was dictated by God.)

[_ClarkGoble]

If it comes from God the first time it shouldn't need doctrinal development

I don't quite see why that would follow since presumably God is still limited by the audience he is speaking to in terms of how complicated and accurate an answer he can provide. In the same way I'm fully capable of explaining quantum mechanics (to the degree I dare say I understand it) to a college student with some familiarity with physics and calculus. Explaining it to a high school student would be far more limited. Explaining it to a 10 year old more limited yet. Trying to explain it to a bunch of illiterate shepherds in ancient Palestine might be a lost cause.

It seems to me that doctrinal development often happens because our capabilities for comprehension change.