#3: Mark D.

I completely agree with your description of the Trinity. I believe the way you just explained it, it is logical and without contradiction. I also believe it fully explains the Mormon concept of Godhead. (Or at least the Mormon concept of Godhead is one possible instantiation of that formula.) In other words, the Mormon concept of Godhead is a form of Trinitarian doctrine, under the logic you are laying out. (I label that I don’t reject as per my previous posts.)

Every Trinitarian I’ve talked to have quite forwardly assured me that the formula you just described, even though it fits their own creeds, is a heresy. Such is life. It’s too bad really, there is a lot of common ground here that gets ignored due to wanting to be different. (Not that I think there is something wrong with wanting to be different, but it’s a problem if if hides us from real understanding of those differences, which I think is the case here.)

#2: Ray, I completely agree.

#7: Yes, BRM was quite straightforward in the very logic you just went through. But he still affirmed that there was one God. He, like me, split the word “God” into two (or more) different senses.

Anyhow, I have been digesting this for a couple of days, and I think I understand some statements made by my Lutheran and Baptist friends better. I am still to this reminded of “that is the beauty of it!” when I participate in discussions about Trinity, because usually a creedalist brings up something that says as much.

“The Eastern Orthodox church tends to regard the Western Church, in both its Roman and Protestant branches, as too rationalistic because of its particular theological development (think Anselm on the atonement or Westminster on the covenant) as opposed to the apophatic approach of the East, in which theology is done largely by via negative, God being defined by what he is not, being best known mystically.” (*)

I have felt, in my conversations with Protestant Christians, that their understanding of the Trinity is closer to the Mormon teaching of the Godhead (the way that you explain the Athanasius Creed alone is in harmony with Mormonism’s teaching of the Godhead). It is only those that have intensely studied the subject that truly understand the differences between the Godhead and mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of the Trinity.

No substance splitting is required. There is one essence (nature) shared by three persons. Suppose the substance is “hydrogen”. The existence (hypostasis) of distinct hydrogen atoms does not detract from the identification of each as having the same essence (nature, ousia) as every other hydrogen atom.

Likewise, “consubstantial” does not mean having the same body or identity. As translated, it means no more and no less than sharing the same nature or essence.

If you follow that rule the Athanasian creed makes perfect sense. If you go beyond it, the creed turns into a logical contradiction. If you say “the Father is God” and “the Son is God” and “the Holy Ghost is God”, the word “is” in those phrases can only have reference to sharing the same nature, or the idea that they are distinct persons is a logical contradiction.

That is the crux of the issue – on two fronts: 1) that anyone is damned for not accepting something, regardless of the reason; 2) that the damnation pronounced is NOT for rejecting the creed but for rejecting the interpretations of the creed that have arisen over the years and masked the actual wording of the creed. I have very little problem with the actual wording of the earliest creeds; it is the later interpretations and creeds that truly are abominable, imo.

This is going to be blasphemy to those who currently accept that creed, but I am convinced if an objective parser read the creed itself and made the determination of salvation v. damnation based solely on that parsing, Mormonism would be lauded while “orthodox Christianity” would be damned. This post has laid out a very good explanation as to why that would be.

Well done.