Do Mormons Believe in the Trinity?

[zerinus]

Hi Zerinus,

First, thanks for taking the time to reply to me. ( I appreciate your efforts )

If I may ask a follow up.
You offer that that Scripture is your ( LDS ) primary source to determine how LDS doctrine is established and that this indeed always wins over " tradition "… This confuses me further. Where in scripture is there anything mentioned about much of the LDS doctrine that is taught???

God was once a mere man of an Earth before he became God of our Earth.

That doctrine is not taught in LDS scripture. LDS scripture teaches that God is eternal and has always been God. He is also the God of all creation. He is not just the God of this earth. That doctrine was taught in the King Follett discourse by Joseph Smith; but it was never canonized in LDS scripture, and it has been recently challenged by our late prophet Gordon B. Hinckley.

Jesus is the “spirit brother” of the Devil.

I have discussed that in a Blog article which you can read here.

God had physical relations with mary leading to the conception of Christ.

That is not in LDS scripture and is not LDS doctrine.

Different levels of Heaven . . .

That is scriptural. Paul talks about being taken up to the third heaven:

2 Corinthians 12:

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And LDS scripture confirms that there are there heavens or degrees of glory.

. . . what if the man achieves the highest level and the wife does not?? How will they be sealed forever if they are not in the same place?? . . .

If a couple live worthily they will both make it to heaven together. If one of them transgresses and loses his/her exaltation, God is able and will provide him/her with a suitable companion.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

So why are you trying to prove that Mormons believe in the Trinity? Is not the ‘Trinity’ a term not used in scripture? After all it, “may carry philosophical and theological nuances that do not conform to LDS doctrine.”

By the way thanks for taking the time and answering my first question. Greatly appreciated.

God bless

I mke an exception with the Trinity, for the reasons explained in my Blog. Also, Trinity is an ancient theological term. Henotheism is more of a philosophical term. Pholosophy does not sit well with theology in my way of thinking.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

That is scriptural. Paul talks about being taken up to the third heaven:

2 Corinthians 12:

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And LDS scripture confirms that there are there heavens or degrees of glory.

The “heavens” as understood in the ancient world were:

1 - the sky where the birds fly and the clouds float.

2 - outer space where the stars and planets move

3 - beyond space, the place where God lives.

It had nothing to do with the Mormon 3 degrees of heaven, which is why the idea is not seen anywhere in the bible.

The Mormon idea is a misreading of the bible by 19th century yahoos who knew nothing of ancient cultures.

 

[ralphinal]

I am very well, thank you. I hope all is well with you too.

If you want to use those terminologies that is fine by me; but I would rather not use them, because they are unscriptural, and may carry philosophical and theological nuances that do not conform to LDS doctrine. All I need say is that according to our theology men can become gods, and hence there is a plurality of gods; but they are all subject to the Supreme Deity of heaven, who is the Father. If you want to invent special terms for that you can; but I won’t use them. I prefer to stick to the terminologies used by the scriptures themselves.

zerinus

I do understand. If you would indulge me for a minute, would it not, then, be fair to say that Mormons are NOT monotheistic in the same sense as the Jews, Muslims, or other Christians?

I mke an exception with the Trinity, for the reasons explained in my Blog. Also, Trinity is an ancient theological term. Henotheism is more of a philosophical term. Pholosophy does not sit well with theology in my way of thinking.

zerinus

Interesting. Classically, Theology and Philosophy are sisters. To fully embrace one, you must know the other. Modern thinking has tried to separate the two, but they do go together.

 

[cothrige]

That doctrine is not taught in LDS scripture. LDS scripture teaches that God is eternal and has always been God. He is also the God of all creation. He is not just the God of this earth. That doctrine was taught in the King Follett discourse by Joseph Smith; but it was never canonized in LDS scripture, and it has been recently challenged by our late prophet Gordon B. Hinckley.

I think I have misunderstood something about LDS theology then. I had thought God had at one time been a man like us? I guess I presumed that this meant that LDS believed that he was a man before being God. That he had lived a good Mormon life and then he became a god. I was wrong in that then? Why, then, was he a man like us?

 

[CJ_Nick]

LDS scripture teaches that God is eternal and has always been God. He is also the God of all creation. He is not just the God of this earth. That doctrine was taught in the King Follett discourse by Joseph Smith; but it was never canonized in LDS scripture, and it has been recently challenged by our late prophet Gordon B. Hinckley.

zerinus

Hello again Zerinus,

I will do my best to offer this with the same courtesy you have shown me ( thanks for that )

Can you understand how that comes across to some of us non LDS folk??
" Prophet " A " challenges or contradicts prophet " B " ( The very first prophet ) in regards to the teaching of exaltation.

Are suggesting that some LDS folk believe the King Follet Sermon that God was once a mere man of a different Earth before he became God of ours. While other LDS folk offer what you have ( decided to follow a different LDS prophet ) that God is indeed eternal and has always been God and that he is God of all creation.

How is this possible considering what is at stake:

Prophet “A” taught " B "
Prophet " C " does not agree with prophet " A " and taught " D "
I believe " A " but understand why some choose " D "

Simply do not get it.

God bless,
CJ

 

[zerinus]

I do understand. If you would indulge me for a minute, would it not, then, be fair to say that Mormons are NOT monotheistic in the same sense as the Jews, Muslims, or other Christians?

I don’t think that those kinds of comparisons are helpful. All I need to say is that Mormonism is a monotheistic religion. These quotes might help:

1 Nephi 13:

41 . . . wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Interesting. Classically, Theology and Philosophy are sisters. To fully embrace one, you must know the other. Modern thinking has tried to separate the two, but they do go together.

I agree that classical Christian theology has been heavily influenced by Western philosophy; but that is an aberration. The only valid source of Christian theology is the Christian revelation, which ultimately means the scriptures. That is where the God has revealed Himself to man. In your case that means the Bible. In our case it means the Bible plus the additional scriptures of the new dispensation.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I think I have misunderstood something about LDS theology then. I had thought God had at one time been a man like us? I guess I presumed that this meant that LDS believed that he was a man before being God. That he had lived a good Mormon life and then he became a god. I was wrong in that then? Why, then, was he a man like us?

It has not be revealed how God came to be God. Anything said about that will invariably be based on cojecture and speculation.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Alright, z,
Now, now is this monotheistic?

 

[PaulDupre]

It has not be revealed how God came to be God. Anything said about that will invariably be based on cojecture and speculation.

zerinus

Your church seems pretty clear on the matter. Your current Gospel Principles manual, used to teach the basics of the Mormon faith to new members, says:

What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ? The Lord has said, “If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “If we will continue in God; that is, keep his commandments, worship him and live his truth; then the time will come when we shall be bathed in the fulness of truth, which shall grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel–you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

• Gospel Principles, Chapter 47

 

[zerinus]

Hello again Zerinus,

I will do my best to offer this with the same courtesy you have shown me ( thanks for that )

Can you understand how that comes across to some of us non LDS folk??
" Prophet " A " challenges or contradicts prophet " B " ( The very first prophet ) in regards to the teaching of exaltation.

Are suggesting that some LDS folk believe the King Follet Sermon that God was once a mere man of a different Earth before he became God of ours. While other LDS folk offer what you have ( decided to follow a different LDS prophet ) that God is indeed eternal and has always been God and that he is God of all creation.

How is this possible considering what is at stake:

Prophet “A” taught " B "
Prophet " C " does not agree with prophet " A " and taught " D "
I believe " A " but understand why some choose " D "

Simply do not get it.

God bless,
CJ

The way I see it is that if you wanted to look at it with a skeptical eye, you can say things like that about any religion. But I don’t look at it that way. The way I look at it is that when I read the Book of Mormon (and other scriptures that Joseph Smith produced), the Holy Spirit undeniably witness to me that they are true and came from God. That also testifies to me that Joseph Smith is a prophet as he claimed to be. Having established the truth of that without any doubt for myself; then it is possible to find satisfactory explanations for the kind of skeptical questions you are raising. It doesn’t present a problem to me. But to you I am sure it would. Perhaps a Jew, a Muslim, or a Protestant looking at your religion would find similar hurdles which he might fine impossible to cross.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Alright, z,
Now, now is this monotheistic?

Sorry, didn’t get that one.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Sorry, didn’t get that one.

zerinus

It should have said how…

See we both have three Divine Persons that make up God. Your position is that they are separate beings and that through a process set up by God, men can become Gods in the afterlife. Our position is that there is One Divine Being and that men can never become Gods.

I am trying to see how the Godhead in LDS theology allows it to be monotheistic. How is there One God when there are three separate beings involved

 

[zerinus]

It should have said how…

See we both have three Divine Persons that make up God. Your position is that they are separate beings and that through a process set up by God, men can become Gods in the afterlife. Our position is that there is One Divine Being and that men can never become Gods.

I am trying to see how the Godhead in LDS theology allows it to be monotheistic. How is there One God when there are three separate beings involved

If that is a question that bothers you, then you first need to resolve the same problem within your own Christian tradition, before worrying about ours. For example, Clement of Alexandria has said:

“. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour.” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958, p 244).

How could Clement believe in one God, when he believed that Jesus was a separate God in rank below the Father; and there were a whole bunch of other gods in rank below Jesus Christ?

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

If that is a question that bothers you, then you first need to resolve the same problem within your own Christian tradition, before worrying about ours. For example, Clement of Alexandria has said:

“. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour.” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958, p 244).

How could Clement believe in one God, when he believed that Jesus was a separate God in rank below the Father; and there were a whole bunch of other gods in rank below Jesus Christ?

zerinus

Not what it says. Sorry. No where does that establish that Jesus is a god below God. Further, there is more to the quote than jus that. The classic understanding is that we are Sons of God and Heirs to his Kingdom through the adoption into the PAssion, death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. No where was it ever taught that we would rule over our own little worlds in the afterlife.

Once you separate the Trinity as we understand it into what you understand, how are you still monotheistic?

 

[PaulDupre]

The honest Mormons on this forum have admitted that they are not monotheists, but henotheists.

 

[zerinus]

Not what it says. Sorry. No where does that establish that Jesus is a god below God.

It is implied. If there are a whole bunch of gods in rank below Jesus (and it does explicitly say that), and Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than Him, that tells us that Jesus is God in rank below the Father, just as there are others are gods in rank below Jesus. That is logical.

Further, there is more to the quote than jus that. The classic understanding is that we are Sons of God and Heirs to his Kingdom through the adoption into the PAssion, death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

I believe that one should let people speak for themselves, rather than be spoken for by self-appointed spokesmen. I let the Early Church Fathers speak for themselves, rather than let modern day pundits act as their spokesmen. Their literature is not small, fragmentary, or too obscure to require interpretation. They can speak for themselves, and they do it rather well. I let them speak for themselves; and they all tell me there are a whole bunch of other gods—of varying ranks! And I take their words for it. Why should I let you speak on their behalf, when they can speak so eloquently for themselves?

No where was it ever taught that we would rule over our own little worlds in the afterlife.

We don’t say that either. No such doctrine is found in LDS scripture. LDS scripture says what the ECFs said—that there are many gods, that men can become gods, and they are gods who rank below the Jesus and the Father. No contradiction there at all.

Once you separate the Trinity as we understand it into what you understand, how are you still monotheistic?

I am sure Jews and Muslims looking at your Trinity would consider you polytheists—no matter how you chose to define it.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

It is implied. If there are a whole bunch of gods in rank below Jesus (and it does explicitly say that), and Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than Him, that tells us that Jesus is God in rank below the Father, just as there are others are gods in rank below Jesus. That is logical.

I believe that one should let people speak for themselves, rather than be spoken for by self-appointed spokesmen. I let the Early Church Fathers speak for themselves, rather than let modern day pundits act as their spokesmen. Their literature is not small, fragmentary, or too obscure to require interpretation. They can speak for themselves, and they do it rather well. I let them speak for themselves; and they all tell me there are a whole bunch of other gods—of varying ranks! And I take their words for it. Why should I let you speak on their behalf, when they can speak so eloquently for themselves?

so, do you think that they would be LDS? Or that they WERE LDS?

We don’t say that either. No such doctrine is found in LDS scripture. LDS scripture says what the ECFs said—that there are many gods, that men can become gods, and they are gods who rank below the Jesus and the Father. No contradiction there at all.

I thought that it was taught by the LDS that those who make it all the way to the top rule their own celestial worlds. Is that incorrect?

I am sure Jews and Muslims looking at your Trinity would consider you polytheists—no matter how you chose to define it.

zerinus

Well, that part is correct. However, at least we do claim that there is only ONE God and One Divine Being.

 

[zerinus]

so, do you think that they would be LDS? Or that they WERE LDS?

They were Christians closest to the early centuries of Christianity, and therefore better reflected what the earliest Christians believed. Whether they “would” be LDS or not I have no idea.

I thought that it was taught by the LDS that those who make it all the way to the top rule their own celestial worlds. Is that incorrect?

Yes, it is incorrect. Speculations were made to that effect by some early Church leaders; but that is just what that was—speculation. There is nothing in LDS scripture that teaches that. LDS scripture teaches what I had told you above.

Well, that part is correct. However, at least we do claim that there is only ONE God and One Divine Being.

In a sense, so do we. The divinity of the Father is so great, so complete, so absolute that all other gods are no gods by comparison. Compared to Him, there is in fact no other God:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Jesus always expressed His subordination to the Father. If the Father is greater than Him, where to you think we will stand? We become gods by grace. It is a gift of God. It represents a degree of salvation in the kingdom of God. To be saved means to be deified. That is all that it means.

zerinus