How does one explain the Trinity to a Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. How does one go about explaining the Trinity to a Mormon? 🤷:confused:
 
This is written by Stephen Douglas “True Christain”

I asked his permission to use his text. As a result, some of you will say, “Gee, are you too much of a coward to put it in your own words?” My answer is, I see you quoting your CC all of the time." And Yes, I can give you my understanding, too, but read this first, and ask questions w/o straw-man or ad hominem. It is pretty hard to do that as I have dealt w/some pretty harsh Protestants, Catholics, Athiests, Muslims on Facebook groups such as “Disproving Mormonism” “Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ” “Joseph Smith the Prophet” “FAIR: Latter Day Saints”.

Mr. Douglas was born and raised LDS, apostasized and was very against the LDS church for 20 plus years Wrote anti-LDS literature. He is again LDS.

Throughout Christendom, there has been a lot of controversy over Deity. Not only has there been a struggle over the nature of God, but there has also been much misunderstanding about the name or names of God. To understand how this confusion came to be, we must go to the source of said confusion and trace its path to modern times.
The Catholic Church first defined the nature of God by the Athanasian Creed of the Third Century AD. This Creed preceded the formal organization of the Catholic Church in 325 AD. This definition is rather lengthy. For economy of space, I will only quote the parts relating to the nature of God:

So, this is the origin of our modern definition of the Godhead. If you think it would be any less incomprehensible in its entire text, you will find the total Anthanasian Creed in the second volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“[W]e worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. . . . not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. . . . the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. . . . not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
“So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. . . . not Three Gods, but One God. . . . the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. . . . not Three Lords but One Lord. . . . we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, . . . forbidden . . . to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. . .
“So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; One Son not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. . . . the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. . . .
“. . . our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
“God, . . . Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not
Two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh of one Man, so God and Man is one Christ.”
Thus, this is the origin of our modern definition of the Godhead. If you think it would be any less incomprehensible in its entire text, you will find the total Anthanasian Creed in the second volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
 
The Athanasian Creed was later modified in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when Constantine organized the Catholic, or Universal, Church. The Nicene Creed, as it came to be called, was officially adopted by the Catholic Church in 381 AD and was carried over into the English Protestant or Anglican Church centuries later. It is as follows in its entirety:
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, Amen.”

As indicated by the lone use of bold type in this quotation, you can see I do not have many problems with the Nicene Creed as a whole. The problem is, one of the Adversary’s tools is to use a lot of truth to slide in one of his “little white lies.” The ECs will argue with the LDSs when it comes to understanding the meaning of the Savior’s words when He told the Jews, “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30) For ECs, this is proof the Father and Son are “consubstantial.” However, when Jesus gave His Great Intercessory Prayer on behalf of His disciples, He told the Father His desire, “that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:22) This is idiomatic phraseology meant to express oneness in purpose, not in substance.
 
No offense Bacalzo but I was looking for the Catholic point of view. 😉
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. How does one go about explaining the Trinity to a Mormon? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
There is one God.

This one God consists of three “persons”—Christians name them as Father, Son, and Spirit.

Each “person” is God.
 
diggerdomer said:
There is one God.

This one God consists of three “persons”—Christians name them as Father, Son, and Spirit.

Each “person” is God.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that. But how does one explain that to a Mormon? Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods and that they are united in purpose only. What I am trying to figure out is how to explain that they are all of one substance, that they are all one God.
 
Sorry! I will back out now. However I am Mormon and former Catholic. No harm done. I won’t come back. Sorry.
 
bacalzoLDS said:
Sorry! I will back out now. However I am Mormon and former Catholic. No harm done. I won’t come back. Sorry.
Click to expand...
No, it’s ok Bacalzo. I was just saying that I didn’t want the Mormon perspective on this because I am trying to bring a Mormon to Catholicism. I am not wanting him to stay Mormon. By the way, what made you choose to leave Catholicism for the false cult of Mormonism? :eek:🤷:confused:
 
(1) Scripture
(2) History
(3) Reason 👍

If you debunk the “Great Apostasy” as it is called, it should be much easier explaining orthodox Christianity. For this alleged apostasy is the ground of Mormonism – as a church that is supposed to be restored to the truth.

Matthew 16:18: "the gates of hades will not prevail against it (the Church)"
 
Holly,

First, having just checked the dictionary and found the word “cult” to mean either “a system of religious beliefs and ritual”, “a religion regarded as unorthodox” or “great devotion among a group to a particular person, idea or thing”, I, personally would not find the use of the word “cult” offensive because I know its correct definition. The sad thing is that most people using the word “cult” have no idea of the word’s correct definition. One definition of a cult is “a great devotion among a group to a particular person, idea or thing,” and LDs are truly devoted to our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Second, I’ve never agreed with Protestant Doctrine, at least not how Protestants put it across, and in my mind it’s always been either Catholic or a Restorationist Church. Before I even met the Missionaries or knew anything of the Church, I’d already come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is not correct. But it’s interesting how much the Catholic Church resembles ours, most of the Doctrine is very similar, though it’s like the Catholic Doctrine is a half formed version of ours, just like I’d expect if the LDS Church was true (well I say if, but you know what I mean). There are things I disgree with in the Catholic Church, but I think they are a good 80 - 90% there.

Last, (Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, Part 3, (Salt Lake City:
Deseret News Press, 1921), 63-64.)A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned a doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar,
with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all
about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is betweenCatholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right,we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg
to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part
of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom
we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic
succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” The Catholic theologian’s name is John A. Reiner. The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23. [If you want to buy a copy of the book, be forewarned that it is long out of print; the cheapest one I saw on the internet was $325.]"The statement is also included in LeGrand Richard’s book “A Marvelous Work and A Wonder” on page 3 entitled “A Catholic Utterance” and is also included in a pamphlet entitled “The Strength of the Mormon Position”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top