Is some of the difference due to age rather than triad position?

WOW! What an interesting question and a valid point. I agree that I would have answered questions differently when I was in my 20s than I would now (in my 30s). I think too that sometimes it is the age of the child that is involved that affects the way people answer their questions.

Kudos to you for the question!

No sir, Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand the Trinity to mean three gods. Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Trinity doctrine as introduced by the Roman Catholic Church which defined it, as has been mentioned by the gentleman above. Therefore, attempting to redefine it now, so many thousands of years removed, exposes a form of dishonesty on the part of said revisionist. So Jehovah's Witnesses go with the definition as given by the Roman Catholic Church’s introduction of the Trinity doctrine. That being said . . . Much is made about the translation of John 1:1 – indeed, every time the Trinity doctrine is discussed, many fold their faith around this particular verse, denouncing Jehovah's Witnesses as if their particular translation of it is an alien concept (which it is not). Discussion abounds regarding the grammar, predicate nominatives, equative verbs, and so on. And this is just fine for we need to do this in language. It seems curious, however, to hang one’s hat on a particular verse – and that to the exclusion of all others. Particularly where, as here, the verse does not even mention the so-called third section of the Trinity. Now if, as you said, ‘God consist of three individuals: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . . the Father is not the same person as the Son . . . son not the same person as the Father . . . Father not the same person as the Holy Spirit . . . there are NOT three gods, but one,” then you have effectively introduced three gods. Why? Because, since there are three separate and distinct persons, three separate and distinct individuals, of necessity, there must be three gods. Or, are you saying that the three distinct persons make up Almighty God when they somehow come together? In which case, when on earth, Jesus was most assuredly not God. Moreover, it is impossible for God Almighty to die. And Jesus died. These two facts, scripturally, are undisputed. No matter how one looks at the Trinity doctrine – dead on or askance - it is impossible for Jesus to be Almighty God. Hannah J Paul Edit: The exhaustive quote located somewhere above concerning Constantine’s convening of the Council of Nicaea comes, wholly, from the August 1, 1992 Watchtower article entitled When and How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop. Citation to this material must have been inadvertently omitted.

Mid-40's and very creaky

Reader's Digest summary of adoption feelings evolution:

Teens - a lot of rage

20's - wasn't ready to touch on my adoption issues, but rather focused on what I felt was a feminist issue of punishing women by taking away their babies. I was angry in your face political grrrrl

30's - started to touch on it, but then would bury it when the pain got too much. This repeated the entire decade

40's - wishing I had better spent my 30's instead of doing the revolving door

I'm an OLD 27 been in this groove with my hubby for 9 years.

Gosh 9 years, thats like 1/3 of my life. OH, I feel old now. If I could I'd just skip to retirement.

In my groove but on the verge of my stride. (39) I'm an adoptive mom. I usually have to learn the hard way, but after i bang my head against a brick wall uummm...like 10 times, i get it. The older i get it, the faster i understand other peoples point of view.

My answers are much different now verses my 20's. So i agree its a good question.

I will be 31 this July. It took me until reunion at 21, a year after the loss of my son, to start seeing the negative effect adoption had on me. It took 5 more years to start really getting how profound that hurt was. It has taken me 5 additional years to start healing from it. I am far from healed completely... I would imagine another 31 years give or take a decade or two might do the trick.

Maybe by the time I am 80 I will be able to see past the things that anger me around here.

I'm mid-40's. Since I'm old enough to have a few (ahem) decades of adult life on which I can reflect, most certainly I know my views, outlook and opinions were different in many areas back then. Twenty or so years of life have influenced me, as they will do anyone. No matter what the issue, age is frequently a factor in how someone experiences/views it, although I wouldn't have thought that it would 20 years ago.

Absolutely. Adoption has come a long way and some times people forget that what is available now wasn't back then. My favorite is all the crack whore statements about birth mothers. I'm so old crack wasn't even invented.

OOps!! 52

Sarah: your answers will be the same but the thing to remember is that the questions will be different in another 20 years.

What a great question! I'm in my early 40's (yikes) and am asking questions now that I never even thought of in my 20's. For me it has to do a lot with raising my own kids and seeing the wonder of genetics at work. It has made me think of my own life in a really different way.

In my 60's and only in the past 18 months have I experienced the whole concept of adoption. I am a birth father and reunited with my daughter who is 41. I had no idea of all that goes on. I am learning and learning and learning more and more every day. It is amazing. Sometimes I wonder if this is all meant to lead me somewhere. I don't know, but I can tell all of you, yes you will be in a constant state of change.

Late 30s. My views haven't changed much. My ability to speak up has increased. I have always felt that people oversimplified adoption and its effects on the adoptee (since that's what I know about). I haven't always felt free to express that view. (If you need to know why I haven't felt free, just read some more of the questions and answers on this site.)