Kathy,
As I have tried to read and hear your issue, it seems that for whatever reason, you have come to believe something akin to what the Jehovah's Witness teach. I do not mean to accuse you of trying to use the "Witness" propoganda with this group, I am only trying to get a handle on what doctrine(s) you seem to hold because they are not Christian.
WHAT IS A DOCTRINE? A doctrine is first an observation. Scripture REVEALS truth to us and we begin to systematically relate the parts to the whole. In reading scripture, we want to be able to understand it as an unbroken fabric of revelation instead of discordant threads of thought. The result is a formulation of doctrine that expresses the teachings of scripture in the language of men in order that the mind of man may grasp the concept presented.
REGARDING THE TRINITY. Since we both acknowledge there is a God and He is divine, that leaves us in question of only two members of the Godhead and their relationship to the first member. Jesus clearly associated the Spirit with Himself in John 14-16. Elsewhere it is even called, "The Spirit of Christ". Without writing pages here to prove it, I will make the logical jump that you have already been able to make that association from Scripture for yourself. The difficulty comes in associating those two to the first.
THE INCARNATION: is the first place we are able to clearly see that Jesus was something other than simple man, nor was he ever alleged to be an angel, and he certainly was more than a prophet. That means the traditional catagories are not suffecient for us to understand how to relate Christ to the Father. Old Testament prophecy certainly aided us in understanding that one would come to take on the sins of the world and reconcile all people to God. That one was the 2nd Adam. Scripture clearly teaches however that no man could ever be suffecient to qualify for the role of mediator unless he was perfect. Since only God is perfect, a natural assumption must be made regarding the nature of Christ.
The question that must come back to you is, "Why would you refuse God to act in this way? That is, to manifest Himself in the flesh, taking on the appearance of Man, in order to accomplish His will. Certainly, if He is to be God, this must be within His power to do?? How can we limit God in His relationship to Himself when we even acknowledge that we have more than one componant or deminsion to ourselves. We have a moral conscience that often is in conflict with our volitional will. If those two componants were perfected in us, would one cease to exist or would we still have a conscience and a will but in perfect harmony with one another? Why can't God have something akin to this only in a much more complex and perfected state? Then again, this may only be an analogy but I find it helpful when allowing for the possibility that God is at least as much as a man and we know, He is certainly much more.

For those reading this besides Kathy, don't be alarmed. I understand your explainations of the Trinity and I am in agreement with the creeds. This is not a full explaination of my understanding but if Kathy is genuinely seeking to understand the Trinity, it seems necessary to drop back and explain it from "scratch".
Blessings,
Michael Cannon